User talk:Eraserhead1/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Eraserhead1. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Beg pardon Eraserhead, but I could not understand your comment on the Wimbledon thing. Would you please care to clarify. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it clearer now? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look at the Wimbledon nomination and article now. I have added many refs. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a RfC thread at Talk:Shanghai regarding the question whether Shanghai or Chongqing can claim to be the largest city in the PR China. However, this thread has not seen participation from anyone in more than 5 days, and there really needs to be more input. Since you seem to be interested in contemporary issues affecting China, you may wish to give your opinion on this matter. Thanks much—HXL's Roundtable and Record 01:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Eraserhead1. I just tweaked your note at the bottom of the page; hope you don't mind. Can you tell me where this demand for parallelism is coming from? Is it a policy or guideline somewhere? Thanks. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a strong consensus to do that. Before taking it to mediation I suggested that option and was roundly beaten on it I'm afraid. There is no doubting the consensus that the titles need to be parallel. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, did you know that if you enter Abortion rights movement (without the hyphen) it redirects to Abortion debate? Go figure. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That's probably a leftover from when the articles were merged and then de-merged. I guess nobody went and reverted the redirects. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, E. I personally don't see the need for parallelism if it's not required by policy. Maybe I should read the discussion that arrived at that consensus. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree and I pushed it quite hard, but nobody else did unfortunately - here's a link to the discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Eraserhead...as you can see, I am a lowly anon. For this, I must apologize. We all have our stages in life. Regardless, I would like to offer a thought regarding the Abortion parallel-naming that may or may not prove to solve the problem, but from my standpoint it has merit.

In lieu of the proposed "Support for legalized abortion" and "Opposition to legalized abortion," my suggestion is a slight tweak that speaks to the status quo in a more literal sense as regards legality on the basis of law passed by governing bodies: "Support for legalizing abortion" and "Opposition to legalizing abortion."

Here's the thing: as even the most die-hard supporters of abortion rights are well aware, there is no law in the U.S. that supports abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court, with no small amount of exasperation over the inaction of the U.S. Congress to address the matter, no doubt, instead issued an edict that pointed toward the 14th Amendment as justifying abortion. This approach, vis-a-vis true abortion rights being delineated by a governing legal body that actually makes laws (in this case, the U.S. Congress), is what has put the situation in a semantic headlock -- there are no true abortion "laws", thus legality is in a sort of suspended animation.

I have zero interest in inciting anyone who takes issue with the facts of this matter, one way or the other...but the clear issue -- and threat to existing abortion rights in the U.S. -- is distinctly hung up because of this non-"legal" path that's taken us to where we're now standing.

Being an unapologetic independent and true stickler when it comes to etymology and semantics, FWIW I would describe today's situation as one where -- in the U.S. -- a woman has abortion rights (undeniably, via the SCOTUS), but we do not by any means have "legalized abortion." The on-going debate and thus the most accurate labelling -- again, here -- is by necessity focused on "legalizing," whether the participants realize this or not. Thus my proposed article titles are IMHO more accurate, neutral and descriptive than what has been proposed by the mediators.

Respectfully...and peacefully,

--24.8.228.78 (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, although it is a good option and you've justified it well I think probably it will just confuse things. Feel free to comment in the discussion your views about the currently proposed names. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the hatnote is not the best way to go. It's a bit much attention. I'd prefer a note within the introduction. 'This list does not include non-Christian institutions such as Madrassahs...'. Also, the see-also link is pretty good. Do people confuse universities and madrassahs? It seems more than we just want them to understand that this list is 'narrowly' defined and kno where else to look. That can be handled without a hatnote, or with a more general hatnote that doesn't single out a certain kind of institution. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

yeah thanx for the advice. I got it now. Proud Serbian Chetnik (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You recently opined here; this note is to advise you that this section has been closed in lieu of discussing each situation below the linked section individually. –xeno^talk 16:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the time and the means right now but User:Batjik Syutfu and User:Mocctur seem related. Batjik joined 10 days ago and has mimicked most of his decisions. Can't elaborate more right now, got to go. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well the "German" guy does seem to know who Xinhua are - which ties up with the "Chinese" account - its possible they are the same guy and they do have similar views. It is possible they are both just people who dislike posting content, but that has been re-affirmed as totally acceptable on WT:ITN so <shrug>.

They did do a bit of a tag team at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#2011_Grand_Rapids.2C_Michigan_shooting_spree as well though. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It was just a hunch, and like I said, I really did not have the time to check for myself (you seemed to be one of the most active at ITN anyway). This is just a little reminiscent of User:BabbaQ proven to being a sockmaster using several accounts at ITN and AFD. It's not enough for an investigation -- obviously -- but it was a quick thought. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 01:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Eraserhead1. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Raise the rangeblock limit (especially for IPv6).
Message added 02:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I would appreciate it if you make separate !votes for all three proposals. Also note that ISPs often get /32s, and may assign from throughout their entire blocks. Jasper Deng (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Will do later. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Done so. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Eraserhead, just to follow up on your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features, and entirely in good faith, could I ask you to expand on your statement that "We have actually managed to improve it so far this year, maybe not enough, but it is working significantly better."? I'm on the fence about this one. Tony (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done so in the discussion section. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Eraserhead1. Will you weigh in on the above linked discussion. I do not feel that this article is ready for GA review and believe that it would have been better that you asked the editors of the article whether or not it is ready before nominating it. Flyer22 (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The article AppleInsider has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NOTE, WP:WEB with only one outside source that mentions the subject only briefly.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:1-over-x.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Eraserhead1. You have new messages at HereToHelp's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Template:China-header has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Eraserhead1. You have new messages at HereToHelp's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I really don't understand why you want more sources, or what more sources could possibly add. The nature of this type of news is that articles from news providers are just going to be rephrasings of the published article- the BBC did have some other little bits, but not much. It's useful as a citation for two reasons- showing "mainstream" attention, and because it's more accessible than an academic journal. For a species like this, the only other real source at this time will be the original description, which I am making efforts to obtain, but will, obviously, not have anything about the news anyway. J Milburn (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by November 18, 2011.

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Abortion and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've seen you and others say this, "Arbcom will side with neutrality. It's a pillar and the guideline on common name isn't.", or something like it. I don't understand this at all. Policy at WP:AT is very clear about the interplay between COMMONNAME and neutrality and explains how they are not contradictory. See WP:POVTITLE, but the gist of it is that when we decide what the most common name is by looking at usage in reliable sources, we are being neutral in that process! When we go with the name most commonly used in reliable sources, we're not violating neutrality at all. In fact, inventing a new name, a name not used most commonly in reliable sources to refer to the topic at issue, arguably is a neutrality violation. In any case, it's a clear violation of policy at WP:TITLECHANGES which states, "do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view".

Can you help me understand how there can be a conflict with neutrality when we go with COMMONNAME? Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As has been covered at length in the mediation case WP:POVTITLE doesn't apply as anti-abortion etc are used quite a lot as well. This ground has been covered extensively already in the mediation cabal case.

Quite frankly you have presented no evidence from a straight Google that a substantial portion of those hits you are relying on aren't talking about something other than abortion, but we do know what their style books say. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can demonstrate that anti-abortion is used not just "quite a lot", but more often than "pro-life", it's usage is irrelevant to finding the most common name used in reliable sources as is relevant to WP:POVTITLE.

LOL! You think those organizations - or any reliable source - would use the term "pro-life" to refer to something other than abortion? Is that what you really believe? Quite frankly, that possibility did not even occur to me, so I saw no need to present such evidence.

You've not explained the justification for violating policy by inventing a new name rather than using the most common name. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Hits have been found using pro-life to refer to turkeys. And WP:POVTITLE requires the non neutral term to be used significantly more. Not just 51% of the time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the first page of results from the NY Times, it's looking more like 90% than 51%, certainly a "significant majority". Anyway, if there was some other name that was used almost as commonly, then you'd have a point, maybe. But there is no such candidate even. Not even close.

Not that this should matter, but FWIW I'm pro-choice, and feel very strongly about that. For me, this is purely a WP policy issue. The notion that "pro-life" is not the name most commonly used to refer to the topic of abortion opposition in a significant majority of reliable sources genuinely seems preposterous. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

See the points raised in the mediation cabal case where this has all been discussed in vast detail. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on my tp is not agreed by me but you know that full well yourself. I glossed over your revert a bit. Since you did not respond to my qualms from 21:50, 9 July 2011 I presume given the lack of your further comments that I can revert your version anytime. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's reverted I will escalate the matter and continue doing so until it is resolved or until you actually continue discussing the matter. I addressed you qualms and gave you plenty of opportunity to make further suggestions that are practical within the lead section. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I should add that I think your changes so far are reasonable enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I told you that your changes won't improve people's understanding of the topic and keep them from adding madrasahs, but let's see what happens. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well they've been added so frequently that statistically I don't think that particular time means too much. If after 6 months the rate hasn't declined from the previous 6 months then it would be reasonable to remove the content from the lead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I am civil, my argument is ad rem: why does he tag the article, but fail to bring his evidence forth. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I reverted the edit on the Kargil page as the person seems to be Nangparbat, who has been banned for repeatedly adding the term 'Indian-administered' on pages. --92.19.196.36 (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that user is active. Unless the consensus changes to refer to all things in Pakistani controlled territory as Pakistan and all things in Indian territory as India then we have to do this to avoid breeching WP:NPOV. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 26, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Eraserhead1. You have new messages at HuskyHuskie's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please, place the comment where it belongs to. My review and criticism an article content is not a general discussion as you imply!--71.178.110.201 (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you tone your comments language down, and then its more likely to be listened to ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 25, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've made all the contributions I wish to already with regards to this case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This is what the Main Page should link to, I've heard. :) Without any help, it will be deleted very, very soon. So hereby: some help would be most appreciated. Use "rightwing Israeli sources" or some "Palestinian terrorist sources", if you like, I don't mind. As long as it is expanded and linked on the Main Page as the direct reason for the breaking of the truce. Please just help. Thanks already! Polozooza (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with these things. Does your adding a statement indicate that you're a party involved in the case, or is it a statement from outside? Aren't there both kinds? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Outside. I've never interacted with the editor in question before. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Please follow proper editing procedures. This edit was made without comment on the relevant discussion thread. Regards, Nightw 09:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

???? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Go and read the talk page, and the evidence presented at Talk:China#Sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. This is about official names, not what they're called in various media organisations. Nightw 09:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss this discuss it on the article talk page - not here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's already being discussed here. And I didn't bring it up here, I was responding to your comment on the sources. This thread was intended to be about your reverting practices. Nightw 09:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Look I didn't realise that the thing you changed was a new addition as you didn't undo a revision to do it. Even if it had been clearly deliberate jumping up and down about my "reverting practices" after I made a single revert is totally over the top. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well if you didn't notice then that's fine. I wasn't jumping up and down, it was simply a courtesy warning. Nightw 10:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, based on your recent participation in the article, I'd like to invite you to: Talk:Mukkulathor#Suggest_major_reorganisation_of_the_article. Thanks for your input! MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I am busy at the moment. I'll look at it next week. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Eraserhead,

Please refrain from reverting my or any other's changes without asking/commenting on that user's page first, and doing it when it's not a factual error but merely due to your personal preference. I can understand your dislike of "common name" but it is a fact that it's exactly what it is since PRC cannot claim exclusive use of "China", either now or historically. Also the ROC mention is important due to so many people most likely not aware of ROC and to point out the very similar-sounding name. I will not revert back until I give you a reasonable chance to reply. Mistakefinder (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The PRC is basically exclusively referred to as China in English language as you can see from the list of sources gathered for the move request. The ROC is mentioned only a little further down, below the mentioning of the other provinces which seems more appropriate than adding a new paragraph which doesn't really flow with the article. If you want to add some more content about the ROC with the other ROC content in the lead that seems like a good compromise. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Letting you know as a courtesy that I moved your update request under the posted item section rather than let it sit on its own, since it's not a stand-alone nomination.

That's cool. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've decided to restore the IP user's message. You cited "Rv banned user" as your reason for removing their comments, but I can't see (I asked User:SchmuckyTheCat about this and he hasn't given me an answer either) exactly which banned user is behind this comment.

At any rate, don't feed the troll if you think this user is one. Removing a talk-page comment first-time may be a sensible editorial decision; removing it second-time is simply feeding the troll. Deryck C. 14:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

As to be fair is re-adding it after someone else has decided to remove it ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Eraserhead,

Please refrain from reverting my or any other's changes without asking/commenting/discussing/giving good reasons, not just your view, on that user's page first, it was a most appropriate link given the history of Tibet and useful for anyone researching the subject of the currently occupied country of Tibet by the Communist Chinese Regime.

(Peter Dorey 19:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Dorey (talk • contribs)

The requirements for external links are pretty strict on Wikipedia. Per WP:ELNO I don't believe your linked site meets criteria 1, 2, 8 and 11. It doesn't meet 1 as I don't believe it includes any unique information beyond what a featured article would cover as an featured article on Tibet would cover its history in detail as well as postage notes, coinage etc etc. It doesn't meet 2 as it claims to be "the truth" and doesn't cover the Chinese point of view at all - for example there is no explanation that Tibet was ruled by the Yuan and Qing dynasties. It fails to meet criteria 8 as you have to have Adobe Flash installed to display it and it fails to meet criteria 11 as I don't believe it is written by a recognised authority.

There may well be other external links which also fail to meet the criteria as they are strict - you are more than welcome to remove other links which fail to meet the criteria as well.

Finally my apologies for not leaving you a message explaining why I removed the link earlier - that was poor form. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies accepted for not explaining beforehand dear Eraserhead. I understand that the rules of Wikipedia can be constrictive & we should follow in the 'spirit of the law'.

Although the claims to the land of Tibet by the Communist Chinese Regime (not all Chinese people) has are bogus, and forceably made so by sending 30 to 40 thousand troops invading on the 7th October 1950. It's interesting you are so willing to delete that link and to accept as 'fact' such historical fabrication of the PRC Propaganda machine on the policy which is in effect a PRC Lebensraum. That pamphlet gives a very good explanation of Independent Tibet, that would be of interest to someone researching the subject. I was originally going to add some of the pictures of coinage, bank notes, postage, passports etc., showing how the country of Tibet operated before the invasion, but restricted myself to just the external link, knowing the some adminstrator like yourgoodself somewhere would probably 'deem' it incorrect.

Tibet has such a small voice compared to the might of China and the USA/UK governement are scared of them and also have some guilt in the current scenario of problems that has resulted in 1.2 Million that is 20% of the Tibetan population being subject to Genocide. This continues! (Peter Dorey 21:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Dorey (talk • contribs)

Even if we ignore the political point and follow the line of reasoning that Chinese control of Tibet before 1950 is a communist fabrication there are still 3 other reasons I gave for which it would be inappropriate to include that external link. If you want to add content to the article it needs to meet Wikipedia's content requirements, primarily WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.

The reason I bought up the political point at all is that trying to say that Tibet being ruled by China before 1950 is something made up by the Chinese communist party simply isn't true. If you read the Wikipedia articles on previous Chinese dynasties, such as the Qing dynasty you see many maps made by Europeans in the 19th century (and maybe earlier as well) showing Tibet as part of China - such as this one from 1892. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of Yuan/Qing believe you are completely wrong, those Dynasties were Mongolian & Manchurian BOTH dominated/occupied China but not Tibet!

With regards back to maps again, early maps show Tibet as a distinct & independent land, I will upload these shortly for you to check.

A few books that also spring to mind with maps are 'In the Shadow of the Buddha: Secret Journeys, Sacred Histories, and Spiritual Discovery in Tibet' by Matteo Pistono, or 'My Land, My People' by HH the 14th Dalai Lama or 'A Handbook of Tibetan Culture' by Graham Coleman; but not sure the maps within these comply with wiki rules.

Just because it's on Wikipedia don't mean it's 100% true ! (Although am sure some people think it is).

We can debate 'until the cows come home', but many many peoples lives are being lost daily, through the brutality of the 'Chinese Communist Regime' massacaring Tibetans & their own Chinese peoples and pilaging these beautiful countries in the name of so called 'Liberation' which is clearly a different L word in 'Lebensraum' which is a very sad reminder of the Nazis all over again. (Peter Dorey 18:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Dorey (talk • contribs)

I'm not really interested in discussing this further. I've made my point and explained why I removed the link. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking out the overlapped and replaced part of the naming conventions, which I overlooked. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I stopped by to let you know I've started as discussion here and invited wider community input here. I tried to be as neutral as I could, but if I haven't, you are more than welcome to modify my posts as you see fit. I figured it would be polite to let you know about it. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 20:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - much appreciated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

We've been able to avoid anything this vulgar. Please clean it up as soon as you can. An apology with also be to your credit. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I would reconsider. There is no excuse for being so uncivil and so crude, and I will file an ANI. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to escalate it its really up to you. Of note your behaviour will also be looked at in any request to ANI. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I don't think I have as much to brag about as you. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

here The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Your reaction to my statement shows that part of my point was missed. I agree that no sizeable religion bans photography in general, but it isn't our place to decide one religion is too small to honour while another one is big enough to be important. We need to ignore them all equally.—Kww(talk) 10:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

And, BTW, I'm a multilingual 51 year old male that has lived in three countries.—Kww(talk) 10:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel my comment about young Americans was targeted - that wasn't my intention at all and it was meant as a general reflection.

I will update my statement to address your comments later today. I definitely missed something in your comment. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Your "penis" comment was "redacted" by another editor but has been replaced. If you agree with the redaction I will replace the edit I reverted. If not, please feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm content for it to be redacted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Any reason why the tags should not be displayed. If an article has such problems, they have to be displayed. Agreed having separate tags made the article miserable, but now that they have been grouped in "multiple issues", at least the lede is displayed. If you want I can give specific reasons as to why the tags are present. Also, an alternative to reduce the number of tags would be to fix the issues. I've really wanted to fix the article but am waiting for a long break to start working on it. Regards, Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Because its over the top, and most of them are making the same points as each other. We don't need to say it needs a re-write in 4 different ways.

Tagging is useful, but when I read an article and the tags take up the large majority of the screen they are clearly overused - and until yesterday when I first saw the article they were literally taking up the whole screen. POV, RefImprove and Copyedit should definitely cover all of the issues. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Original reasearch? Ref improve? POV? Weasel? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed three issues from the multiple issues box. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the rewrite tag and moved the ref improve inside the multiple issues box - its now much better. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Great :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Your efforts to explain to others of the benefits to Wikipedia of more determinism in title policy are appreciated. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your latest edits. The blocking policy is one of the most important policies governing administrative action, and as such should not be changed without a clear consensus being established first. I don't see any comments supporting this proposed change, the only comment on it registered opposition. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Its quite clear that the policy has severe issues as you can see from multiple arbitrators (and other editors) being extremely keen to shut discussions down and the extremely low number of comments on the new suggestions - even given its current listing on WP:CENT. And then there are the endless discussions on ANI about user conduct - far outweighing its significance on the project.

Another sign of severe issues is taking the most recent ~8000 word discussion on Treasury Tag the only part of the blocking policy that's linked was WP:COOLDOWN (twice) - given how that discussion was fairly split down the middle and involved a lot of expect editors that's an extremely low level of policy linking.

If the blocking policy is ever going to improve to the level where people aren't so fed up with it that they want to immediately shut discussion down and start linking to it in discussions of blocked editors to back up their points then fairly uncontroversial items are going to need to be allowed to be added to the policy with minimal discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your opinions, but if you continue I think you will find that you are very much mistaken about the wisdom of altering the blocking policy without consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not contribute your opinions to the points being discussed? That would definitely be useful and avoids the need for anyone to act unilaterally. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have participated in numerous past discussions on blocking, and I did contribute to the previous discussion on "punishment blocks" up to the point where it became clear that some of the participants were either unwilling or unable to recognize certain distinctions which were turning a supposed policy discussion into a purely semantic discussion of little value. I didn't comment on this latest suggestion because it didn't seem to be going anywhere. Just so we're perfectly clear, my reversion is not based in any way on disagreement with the actual substance of your change. It is solely because one user should not be dictating changes in a policy that is one of our most important behavioral policies. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

How can one possibly get the level of discussion you want? Appreciated for weighing in on the last point.

And while in the punishment discussion there is some tangental discussion on the meaning of the word punishment but other than that its reasonably focused. And personally I thought the tangental punishment discussion was extremely interesting as it showed that the community doesn't agree on what the word means - obviously if it had gone on any longer it would have been unproductive but it never got to that point - and if Newyorkbrad thought the main discussion wasn't achieving anything further why not close it per WP:SNOW which would have been perfectly sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe SNOW is intended to be used that way. It is intended for discussions where the outcome is abundantly clear, not discussions that have just proven to be unproductive. Brad is also known for a careful, measured approach to most issues, hence his unusually long tenure at ArbCom.

I see you talking a lot about determinism. I don't believe a determinist perspective is compatible with Wikipedia's traditional approach to crafting rules. Maybe I'm not grasping the exact context in which you are using the term (as I'm sure you know there are many forms of determinism) but one of the five pillars of Wikipedia is to ignore a rule if enforcing it would prevent from improving the encyclopedia. Another core policy is the idea that we are not a bureaucracy governed by statute. These aren't my opinions, they are the very underpinnings of the core philosophy of how Wikipedia is supposed to function.Additionally, WP:CREEP is a widely accepted perspective on rule making. Making rules overly complex actually reduces the likelihood that they will be followed.

I admit there is also a problem with institutional inertia, that is resistance to change because we are used to things the way they are, but I don't think that is the core issue with the changes you are proposing, it is more to do with the issues I have just identified. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If Brad never "rushes in" why did he come in pretty early this time? I respect him too, but he's perfectly capable of being wrong or being human. On the original point of punishment there was very little support for my proposal to remove the word punishment.

With regards to determinism, something like the 3 revert rule is very deterministic. It draws a sharp line in the sand between edit warring and not edit warring. And while people sometimes get uncomfortable at the edges of the policy in vast majority of cases people will accept that if you do more than 3 reverts you are edit warring. We could add more additional flexibility to allow admins to use their best judgement and block people sooner, but then you'd have far more complaints about the rule and some people might get away with 5, 6, 7, 8 reverts.

Having a harder and faster rule on something doesn't mean you can't use special judgment in special cases, but it gives a far better idea of the general case. Additionally changing something like WP:POVTITLE to have a number doesn't make the rule any more complex, but it stops people from bending it to their views as much in more difficult discussions. Additionally by making the rules more deterministic you make it so that discussions don't have to be as long - and if those discussions want to achieve anything less bureaucratic as you don't have to build things up from first principles each time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Eraserhead1. You have new messages at David Levy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—David Levy 20:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Eraserhead1. You have new messages at Night w's talk page.
Message added 20:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Calabe1992 (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Eraserhead1,

You weighed in a bit on this proposal to archive shared IP talk pages at VPR – I've since updated the specs a bit, and I'm working with Petrb to design a bot that would help us (some first-pass bot operating instructions here). If we get consensus on the proposal, we'd take the bot through WP:BRFA.

If you have a minute, mind weighing in again on the VPR discussion? :) Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Where exactly do you want me to comment? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you're getting this message because you signed up to receive updates at WP:UWTEST, the task force on testing of user warnings and other notifications.

Here's what we're up to lately:

• Huggle: There are tests still running in Huggle of level 1 templates, including a new template written by DGG. A full list is available here
• SDPatrolBot: There is a new test running on the talk page messages of SDPatrolBot, which warns people who remove CSD templates. (Documentation of the test is here.)
• Twinkle: We've proposed a test of AFD and PROD notifications delivered via Twinkle, which has been positively received. (See: 1, 2) This test should start this week.
• Shared and dynamic IPs: Maryana's proposal to test the effect of regularly archiving shared/dynamic IP talk pages is in its final stages. There are also two relevant bot flag requests: 1, 2
• XLinkBot: the herders of XLinkBot have approved a test of its warning messages concerning external links. Test templates are being written and help is most welcome.

Thanks for your help and support, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 02:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Erasorhead. Would you mind adding a few words here that summarise what you think the problem is with the way we curate controversial images? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll do so. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed your last couple of sentences because I'm trying to focus on the problem rather than the solution for now. (That's step 2). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles related to the subject of Abortion:

1. shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
2. shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
3. are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;

In addition:

1. Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
2. Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
3. User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
4. User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
5. User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Eraserhead1,

Just giving you a heads-up about the latest update on our template testing. Please peruse when you have a minute. Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:

• Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Hi Eraserhead1,

We're currently busy designing some new tests, and we need your feedback/input!

1. ImageTaggingBot - a bot that warns users who upload images but don't provide adequate source or license information (drafts here)
2. CorenSearchBot - a bot that warns users who copy-paste text from external websites or other Wikipedia articles (drafts here)

We also have a proposal to test new "accepted," "declined," and "on-hold" templates at Articles for Creation (drafts here). The discussion isn't closed yet, so please weigh in if you're interested.

Thanks for your help! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 11, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Thought about which barnstar to give you for a while. This one seems to fit the most. It's for your hard work in areas of conflict like Abortion and Muhammad images. Ya know, you could always try helping out at MedCab... :-) Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 21:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :). I'll consider it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I noted your edit to the arbitration procedures page. As an FYI of no particular importance, when I started clerking for the ArbCom in 2007, "reject" was usually used when an arbitrator voted not to hear a case. A couple of the arbitrators and clerks starting suggested that "decline" be utilized instead, simply as being gentler and less dismissive of the requests. For a couple of years the two were used more-or-less interchangeably. I hadn't noticed that "decline" has completely replaced "reject," but on a quick skim you are probably right. So, thanks for updating the page. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There are problems with your evidence in the Civility enforcement ArbCom case. In your evidence, you cite a letter by Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), now site-banned under ArbCom discretionary measures for three months. In fact, in discussions on User talk:Jimbo Wales in January 2011, the allegations in that letter proved to have no foundation (the claims had been made during an ArbCom case and arbitrators did not support those claims). Here for reference is the diff where Captain Occam links to his letter in the Economist. [1] His contributions to the discussion on that user talk page can be found here.[2] Mathsci (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Two letters were published and he didn't write both :). That said I will clarify accordingly. Thanks for the note. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a very brief look, before I head out and it would be useful to know which Arbcom case you are referring to. Cheers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I've updated my evidence. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring to [3]. Where did I rely on anything I've changed there in the ArbCom case? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You are relying on the policy as a whole and therefore you shouldn't be making changes to it. You've already had your changes called "unwise" by an arbitration committee clerk.

I apologise for not being perfectly clear with my edit summary, I see how you view it that way - I was intending to refer to the policy as a whole. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your changes of "PRC" to "People's Republic". Compared to "People's Republic," PRC is clear, unambiguous, and concise. Such wholesale and extensive changes should be discussed at the relevant naming conventions page first.

I thought the agreement of the most recent edits to the naming conventions what that "PRC" not be actively removed from articles, though "China" would be endorsed as a context-dependent alternative to PRC as a short form for People's Republic of China. Nowhere did we propose to or agree to endorse "People's Republic" as short form of "People's Republic of China." Going around and using "People's Republic" to articles - which I believe to be unwieldy and ambiguous - should be discussed first.--Jiang (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to get through the lead of China without using any acronyms (unfortunately ROC seems unavoidable), especially as PRC has been used by sources to refer to a Palestinian organisation, whereas I can't think of anything else that you might use "People's Republic" to refer to, especially in context.

Of note I have only made the change to China, and as you dispute it I'll revert it there. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If there's anywhere the PRC acronym needs to be introduced, it should be the lead section of the China article. Introducing PRC before using it will remove all ambiguity in the context it is used. I can't see how PRC could mean anything else in this context.

see People's Republic. we even have an article on it! --Jiang (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If I supply a reference saying it was a decisive victory can that edit stand?[4] Darkness Shines (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a few non-Indian sources calling it a decisive victory then I'm prepared to be OK with it. Generally neutrality is based on our sources, but as its based on all the available English language sources it will certainly need to include the viewpoint of non-Indian sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I`ll poke around and see what pops up. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• ^[1] Will this one do?
• ^[2] Would you als owant information on the authors? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• ^[3]

• • Yes, but "few" means more than one source in my view. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Not an issue, how many would you like? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Two or three will be fine. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Being published internationally by high quality sources (as these have) should be enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added this to the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, that was far easier than the othewr articles I am working on ) Thanks Darkness Shines (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have a moment might you look at this [5] and let me know if I have done enough to show notability? I A7'd the original article and when the author asked how he might stop another being deleted I offered to do it for him :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, more than enough! -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, having seen the discussion on ANI about paid editing I think I shall demand a packet of fags for this :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This sock is mucking with archive settings. He also purposefully bumps old conversations so they won't archive. That's in addition to basic filibustering - he believes as long as he has the last word he wins. It's a classic behavior from my favorite HK troll. I'm tired of dealing with it. I wanted to point the behavior out. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Yeah it's pretty blatant. Unfortunately I've felt generally ignoring him was a better strategy but if you want to file a Sockpuppet report please do.

Fiddling with the archive sections isn't something IP editors normally do. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Saw your ANI post. Is User:Huayu-Huayu the same person causing the problems?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Could be, its difficult to know for sure. Your guy seems much angrier. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

At an ANI discussion, you stated "America still isn't a redirect to United States, even though I've never heard anyone use it to refer to the Americas." As it is very tangential to that discussion, I thought it would be better to reply here. When people say "Columbus discovered America", does this refer to the USA or to the Americas? Fram (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, I hadn't thought of that. To be fair though the definition of countries does change over time and the US didn't exist in any sense in 1492. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi WP:UWTEST member, we wanted to share a quick update on the status of the project. Here's the skinny:

1. We're happy to say we have a new round of testing results available! Since there are tests on several Wikipedias, we're collecting all results at the project page on Meta. We've also now got some help from Wikimedia Foundation data analyst Ryan Faulkner, and should have more test results in the coming weeks.
2. Last but not least, check out the four tests currently running at the documentation page.

Thanks for your interest, and don't hesitate to drop by the talk page if you have a suggestion or question. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for all your support at the AN discussion. I notice you're a javascript developer. Please let me know if you happen to have a lot of experience discussing technical/software issues via email. My theory is that we geeks tend to get into some kind of disassociated mindset in such discussions which is highly effective for that type of communication, but feels inhuman and off-putting to many others. So per that theory, and assuming you're accustomed to that type of communication, that would explain why you don't seem to see as much problem in my behavior as others do. What do you think of that (if you care to share)? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that's part of it. I do think that its important to be human in discussions as well - there's a balance.

With regards to behaviour the evidence presented so far shows that you were right in your application of policy and that you probably went a bit far as I pointed out.

I don't think even they think you've done anything worse than that as otherwise they'd have bought something good to the table when I requested it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I hatted some of your comments on the proposed decision talk page. I'd have hatted Resolute's, too, if I'd caught it early enough. I don't want to start another cross-editor shit war, I just want to hear from the arbs if they choose to talk. please respect that. --Ludwigs2 11:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've already reverted my change :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• What is the process for the move. I see the debate was closed, and the consensus was a move to Libyan civil war. Why is this link now up for a speedy? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The target page needs to be deleted so we can move the existing article over the top. See WP:MOVE for more information about the move process. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I will read that! Thanks again. Ism schism (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, not entirely sure how to use wikipedia yet. I realise the first batch of changes in their enormity was unacceptable. Now just adding to/ correcting some smaller areas which I feel can be improved slightly.

Liweiwang (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, not entirely sure how to use wikipedia yet. I realise the first batch of changes in their enormity was unacceptable. Now just adding to/ correcting some smaller areas which I feel can be improved slightly.

Liweiwang (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at liweiwang's talk page.

Hi there. I have offered to mediate a MedCab case you are involved in here. If all involved parties accept this offer, I hope to be able to bring a reconciliation on the issue. I would appreciate it if you could read the statement I posted on the page and let me know if you accept my offer of mediation. Thanks. Whenaxis about | talk 02:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone cares. As soon as I took it to the cabal the people who wanted change withdrew. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for being lazy in responding. I thought that I didn't have to respond immediately. I actually do care and wish to see a resolution.VR _talk 19:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

While you obviously didn't have to respond the day I opened the request ideally you should have responded within a week or so. I think you should take to Whenaxis if you want to reopen the case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Eraserhead, I did receive a notice from Vice regent and I reopened the case here. I will be notifying the others to see if their interest is still in resolving the dispute. So, when you are available feel free to take a look. Thanks, Whenaxis about | talk 21:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Eraserhead1, you never indicated to me that I needed to respond before the case had a formal mediator. So I didn't know.VR _talk 00:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears that you two are the only ones still interested in this mediation. We could continue this mediation and if there is a dispute later about this topic you can redirect the parties to this page. Also, the parties who are involved can contribute to this mediation later if they would like—if you have a problem with this, please let me know, otherwise I will assume that my proposal is okay. To carry on this mediation in a timely manner, I kindly request that you add the mediation page to your watchlist (you can do this, by clicking the star icon next to the searchbox in the top right corner) and when you are available, please add an opening statement to the mediation page outlining the key issues that you think need to be discussed. Thanks, Whenaxis about | talk 21:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not currently interested in taking this forward, I'm involved in more than enough controversial topics already. I took it to mediation as it seemed that was inevitable and the best way of resolving it, but if only one person will take part other than me I'm not really interested. Sorry. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. That's perfectly fine with me. Since you are the initiator, I am closing the case upon your request. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me on my talk page. All the best, Whenaxis about | talk 23:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Good call. I was unaware that the two pages began with different protection spans, and brought them to the same expiry date (the one on Talk:China). I'll drop Elockid another line to tell him to re-extend the protection of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)‎ tomorrow if he sees fit. Deryck C. 18:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You're at or beyond 3RR on Talk:Muhammad/images. You've been reverted now by multiple editors. WP:BRD, OK? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

So do you have a concrete objection? And I have been extremely happy to first engage in discussion and secondly to make changes when I know what changes need making so I don't think edit warring is a legitimate issue to complain about here.

If you have any concrete objections beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT I'm more than happy to discuss them, and if they are sufficiently fundamental I'll be perfectly happy to revert.

The issue is that concrete objections have been extremely thin on the ground - and the old warning was against WP:POLICY, has free speech issues as it clearly deliberately is trying to prevent people (mostly moderate people I would have thought) from participating in the ongoing discussion and it goes far beyond similar warnings/headers of other controversial discussion sections - even ones where a consensus has been reached. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not a party to your particular dispute here. I am not interested, I don't care who is right or wrong, I have no opinion. I was just acting in my admin capacity to inform you of a 3RR situation. The warring will stop one way or another; if blocks must be issued to stop it, so be it. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

3RR only applies over 24 hours, and its been much longer than that. So you'd have to show edit warring. Given I have been keen to engage in productive discussion I don't really see how that applies. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You are all edit warring, in spite of not technically violating 3RR, warring is still blockable. I see no discussion from anyone on the talk page about your dispute, although I see you left a note for Tarc. I have also warned Tarc and Mathsci. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough - by the way we have been discussing it here. But not very productively. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me -- it honestly hadn't occurred to me to look there for a discussion of a current dispute. I think it has only tangential relevance to that ArbCom case, and should probably be moved to the /images talk page (in my humble opinion). ~Amatulić (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just not my understanding of what a disambiguation page is for. Reception is covered in the iPad article. "A disambiguation page is not a search index." [6] We don't include "iPad accessories" either. Woodshed (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

An arbitration case regarding Muhammad images has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case.
2. Ludwigs2 is prohibited from contributing to any discussion concerning Muhammad.
3. Ludwigs2 is banned from the English Wikipedia for one year.
4. Tarc is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
5. FormerIP is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
6. Hans Adler is reminded to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility.
7. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted.
8. The participants in the dispute about depictions of Muhammad are reminded that editors who engage extensively in an intractable dispute can become frustrated, and that it is important to be aware that as editors we are limited in our ability to contribute constructively to a deadlocked disagreement. Our exasperation with a dispute can make us unprofessional or unreceptive to compromise. We therefore encourage the disputants of this case to consider if their participation in the coming community discussion of depictions of Muhammad would be useful, and we remind them that if they disrupt the community discussion they may be banned from the discussion or otherwise sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions provision of this case.

Mlpearc (powwow) 16:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee

Eraserhead1, since you participated in a previous poll on the wording of the "recognizability" provision in WT:TITLE, your perspective would be valued in this new poll that asks a somewhat different question: WT:TITLE#Poll to plan for future discussion on Recognizability. – Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks. Fingers crossed it gets accepted. --FormerIP (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope so too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some other parties listed (e.g. Tarc, Hans Adler, Anthonyhcole)? --FormerIP (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to limit the mediation request to those people who had explicitly discussed the RFC's contents. If those others want to be added as parties they are more than welcome to add themselves.

A smaller group is more likely to be able to come to a (relatively) quick conclusion, and having less people allows more outside people to help without overwhelming the people talking about the RFC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Eraserhead1: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 February 2012/Muhammad-images.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Xavexgoem, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Eraserhead - I do not appreciate you reverting my close without asking me first. I made an administrative decision and it should be honored. RM closes can occur anytime after 7 days. Relisting doesn't automatically require an additional 7 days. So I am asking you nicely, to revert your edits and abide by the decision I made. WP is not a make-work project for admins and editors. If you want to spend the time and energy to close RMs, then become an admin. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you should wait until 7 days is up before closing the discussion - people might quite legitimately want to comment on the re-opened discussion and not done so because they thought they had 7 days. While you are right that the policy doesn't explicitly state that relisting needs another 7 days that was certainly my understanding of policy, and I have a large experience with the project - if I am confused there is plenty of potential for others to be confused as well.

I really don't think any significant additional work is being created by waiting until the 7 days is up - you should already have carefully considered the arguments made up to now and there will probably only be a few more to read through. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Eraserhead, you just said we should let the closing admin make the decision.. then when he did, you reverted it? I don't get it.. the move request has been open for almost a month.. I think it's time to let it go. Mlm42 (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Eraserhead. I don't think you listened very well to my point above. Whether RMs should run 7 days after a relisting is only a detail in this. If you thought I made a mistake, you should have discussed it with me first. Unilaterally reverting my close without discussion is just not the way its done. I think you'll find that I am always open to discuss closes after they occur with interested editors and I have reopened a number upon request. But what I don't like is to be put in a position by another editor that makes it look like I need to consult with the guardian of the move discussion before I close it. I will ask you nicely once again to revert your change. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike, frankly whether RM's that have been relisted should run for 7 days is the only reason why I reverted your close, for me it is purely an issue of timing.

With regards to contacting you on your talk page that would be in general be good, however, unlike the vast majority of actions on Wikipedia, this was something that was time critical. Frankly I think asking you to respond on your talk page within a fixed timespan (even one as long as 24 hours) would have, in my opinion, created far more WP:DRAMA than going for the approach I did. It is normally perfectly reasonable to give someone 48 hours (or really 72 hours) to respond to a query - although I got an email alert about your comment on Saturday evening, I haven't had the time to respond to this until now. If I gave you 48 hours to respond before reverting you, which would have been the minimum reasonable time, well then the move would have nearly been over anyway.

With regards to "guardian of the move discussion" I suppose you are talking about my "analysis" of the move discussion - I agree that generally these are inappropriate as they put undue pressure on the closing admin and I wouldn't normally go that way. However in this case a whole bunch of people had already made analyses of the move discussion in the opposite direction to mine - so mine should help the closing admin not fall to undue pressure in one direction. If you don't agree with my analysis it should be perfectly possible for you to ignore my analysis as I am clearly thought of as being partisan, and I have agreed to disagree over a key part of it - so pushing to argue my analysis after the close would look very WP:TE to me.

If you do agree with my analysis then of course you (or whoever closes the move discussion) should take it into account when the discussion is closed. That's how WP:CONSENSUS is supposed to work - it's not a WP:VOTE. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) PS I know I have written a lot of words on this, but I do think allowing the full time for discussions is really important - it gives people the opportunity to think about what they are going to say - and not just give their first knee-jerk response - and it allows people who have limited time to comment. I think both of those are really important. You guys have a good point that the discussion has been going on a long time, and I have been torn about this - but I really do think that giving the relisted discussion the full time outweighs those concerns for me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Eraserhead1, I guess the issue I had with this was the lack of respect you showed for an admin's decision.. I really thought your actions were out of line. Trying to convince somebody about a relatively minor procedural point is one thing, but reverting an admin's close is another. It's just plain rude. Mlm42 (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for any appearance of lack of respect, that was not my intention, but I see how my actions were taken that way. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Bummer....I was going to close the Taiwan RM... Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I think Mike should have first pickings on this one. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Grrr....well at least the abortion RFC is finally set up. Will have to close something else I guess. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike while it's better to discuss, it doesn't sound right to leave something closed for few hours' time then open it again. It's better to undo it as soon as possible, even sooner than having you notified. I incline to agree with Eraserhead1 on his action, but I agree it could have been better if he informed you shortly after he undid what you did. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That I did do. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Now that the RM has been relisted again, do you think it's a good idea to leave it open for another week? Mlm42 (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately yes. You've set a defined point in time for people to comment, and so they should have the right to consider the options up until that point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Reversion of RM closure. Thank you. Kanguole 13:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Eraserhead1. This is just a short note to express my thanks for your time and your wisdom on WP:WQA recently. I’m particularly grateful for the soundness of your contributions at diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, and diff6. Many thanks. I have made my closing remarks on the thread and I publicly acknowledged your contribution – see my diff. (I subsequently amended my edit to get your Username correct! – see my diff.) Dolphin (t) 02:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC).

No problem :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)