User talk:Enric Naval/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Enric Naval. 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.

Hello.

I was shocked by your wholesale changes made to the Odin Brotherhood article. Rather than gut the piece, could you make small changes?

You seem to have some issue with the Mirabello book, but a new one by Jack Wolf of Canada will soon be published. Also, if you have issue with the movement, may I ask you to post them at our 1,000-member dicussion forum, which may be accessed through www.odinbrotherhood.com

Thank you.

--Heathenguy (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I was right now typing a reply in your talk page, give me a few minutes. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I was quite shocked by your attacks on the page. Before reverting, I am seeking the help of an administrator. Obviously, anyone can edit a page, but why did you engage in such wholesale alternations?

If you are interested in learning about are group, I would be happy to send you a copy of the new book by Jack Wolf, The Way of the Odin Brotherhood. It is still in production, but will be released soon.

May I ask the reason fo your hostility to the group? --Heathenguy (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

No attacks. I'm only insisting that the article reflects what reliable sources say, not what we would like them to say. I replied in your talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is on a religion. If you wish to discuss a book, please start a NEW article. Please use a neutral point of view, however. --Heathenguy (talk) 04:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you revisited the article recently? There seems to be a heated debate on the talk page over something so minor as removing the reliably sourced school she attended - how many sources does fasttimes68 need for this item to remain in tact? - and there's even a topic ban request | here regarding that user named fasttimes68. Why such a mess? Other people have mentionings about their educational background and it's never such a silly debate like this. HayhayhayFromUK (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• I know this was some time ago, but if you do take an interest in this topic, I suggest looking at COIN, as a large number of paid editors had emerged at the time (around 4). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You commented in the RfD discussion about Criticism of Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 5#Criticism of Wikipedia. That discussion was closed as "moot" due it having been unilaterally converted to an article during the discussion. I chose to boldly implement the apparent consensus of that discussion and the previous discussions linked from it, and reverted it to a disambiguation page. That action has been reverted due to a perceived lack of discussion. I would welcome your comments at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia to see if consensus can be reached again for an dab page, article or redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at [email protected] and, second, email [email protected] along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your input. I had placed PROD on the OPC pages because initially someone started that process without merging them. Thank you by the way for proposing the merger. I had proposed that a long time ago then never got around to it. Anyway I had asked Reaper Eternal about 1980 O-Pee-Chee since it had already been deleted before the merger. Therefore it is the only one that has not been redirected to the List. The comment about wantlists came up because an editor had used article space to do some card trading. Even in the talk space it would not contribute to article content. Libro0 (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? I have not restored any edits from Echigo mole or told anyone that this is allowed. That claim is patently false and you should retract it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You are totally right, I am sorry for my clumsiness. I have amended my comment. Please check it.

By the way, please take this into consideration. Please don't encourage people to interact with indef-blocked editors. Those editors are supposed to stay way from wikipedia. Telling editors in good standing that it's OK to interact with them just encourages indef-blocked editors to return to wikipedia and evade their blocks. It also lands those editors in good standing in hot water, since they are themselves encouraging the block evasion due to having received bad advice. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between saying someone can do something and saying that person should do something. I am not going to tell someone that he or she should communicate with any specific editor unless doing so would be productive, but I am not going to suggest that such communication is not allowed because it is allowed. Many editors, including admins and Arbitrators, communicate with banned or blocked editors for one reason or another, including in social settings, and someone can't and shouldn't be sanctioned for the mere act of talking to someone who is not allowed to edit Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the blocked editor is evading his block if the communication is happening in wikipedia pages. And acting on behalf of a blocked editor is frowned upon, since you helping in his block evasion. It will probably have consequences for both sides: the editor in good standing will be chastised, and the blocked editor will have problems when he tries to obtain an unblock (people will point at the incident and say that he can't keep himself away from wikipedia). The goal of a block is to keep an editor away from wikipedia; it's not intended to have him coaching other editors, either publicly or behind the scenes.

And, even if the communication happens outside of wikipedia. Even if the communication doesn't result in making edits on behalf of the blocked editor. Even then, taking editing advice from an indef-blocked editor is not wise. So, you can but you shouldn't. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Simple fact is that I was not encouraging anything. All I did was note what was allowed by policy and what was allowed by the restriction. That is not encouragement. Personally, I think all you should say to someone about interacting with a banned or blocked editor is to remind that person of what is appropriate when it comes to editing Wikipedia. Trev does not seem to be a bad person so I cannot think of any moral or ethical reason for someone to not talk to him. Not gonna comment on editors with whom I am not familiar, but the suggestion that someone should never even talk to a person kind of rankles me a bit.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You were completely missing the goal of the restriction that was issued by arbcom. I am sorry that you don't like that some editors are excluded from wikipedia, but that's the way things are here. WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN are not going anywhere, and WP:WHYCANTWEALLBEFRIENDSANDHAVEAGROUPHUG is not bound to become policy anytime soon. If you want to a website where nobody is ever excluded from participating, then you are looking in the wrong place. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Not saying that certain editors should not be prohibited from editing, but that no one should demand that people not talk to another human being off-wiki solely because of some sanction against that person on here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, we can't prevent off-wiki communication. But, if off-wiki communication results in block evasions, it's bound to have consequences for the editors enabling the evasion. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

For all it's worth, there was a related incident a few days ago in the Spanish wikipedia. An editor decided to es:evade a block by writing artiles off-wiki and then asking someone else to post them in wikipedia, this caused a lot of upheaval, and it affected negatively his unblocking petition. There was a very long thread on whether the editor had to be blocked for disruption, and whether it was ok to edit in behalf of blocked editors as long as they were only improving articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Santos30 (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I commented there. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I have proposed that Category:Second language acquisition be renamed to Category:Second-language acquisition, and I am notifying you because you either participated in discussions about the hyphenation of "second(-)language acquisition" on the article's talk page, or because you participated in the previous CfD discussion. I would be grateful if you could give your opinion on the latest discussion, which you can find at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 10#Category:Second language acquisition. Thank you for your time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GOTV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Good find with the Physics of the Plasma Universe quotes etc, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to make really really sure that the book actually had plasma cosmology ideas and that I hadn't treated Iantresman unfairly. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hola, Enric, me alegro de tu mensaje, hace tiempo que no hablamos, pero me acuerdo aún de mis primeras intervenciones en es:wp, cuando yo aún era un novato, e interviniste en un asunto relacionado con la Corona de Aragón. Conozco las andanzas de Santos 30 en la wikipedia en español, pero lamentablemente mi inglés es demasiado rudimentario como para poder intervenir aquí. De allí te digo que fue un usuario con POVwarrior hasta tal punto que fue bloqueado. Hago pequeñas ediciones, cuando veo algo muy gordo o muy fuera de lugar, pero poco más. Si quieres puedes contactar con Durero de la wikipedia en español, a ver si él está interesado en aportar alguna cosa. Yo, lamentablemente, solo tengo un inglés de andar muy por casa. En todo caso, un abrazo. Escarlati (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC) PD. Ya que estoy, échale un vistazo al Reino de Aragón de aquí; hay un usuario que se empeña en que no se mantuvo el reino privativo hasta los Decretos de Nueva Planta, no sé por qué lo dirá, pero el hecho es que cada reino (y el Principado) perdió los fueros "por separado", por decirlo así. Hasta tal punto que los de Cataluña fueron unos años más tarde que los de Aragón y los de Valencia. Segundo abrazo. Escarlati (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, hablaré con Durero, a ver si puede aportar algun dato. A mi me obligaron a estudiar inglés desde muy pequeñito, y me fue de maravilla, en eso mis padres acertaron de pleno. Intentaré vigilar un poco ese artículo. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Mientras, échale también un ojo a Crown of Aragon. Es la segunda vez que introduce una clarificación que como mínimo es muy discutible. No le basta con la de Castilla, ahora la emprende con la de Aragón. Gracias por todo. Escarlati (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hola de nuevo: Santos30 ha vuelto a introducir por tercera vez su POVwarrior en la Corona de Aragón, extendiéndolo a todos los artículos a su alcance. En teoría se está discutiendo, pero mientras se discute, sigue introduciendo los cambios una y otra vez sin dejar los artículos en el statu quo ante ¿No hay modo de denunciar la guerra de ediciones y el POVwarrior de este usuario y que los bibliotecarios tomen medidas? Escarlati (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I commented in the ANI thread. But administrators here allow POV-pushers to get away with a lot of disruption before they block them..... --Enric Naval (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Crown_of_Castile#RfC:_Did_the_the_Crown_of_Castile_end_in_1812_or_in_1715

Please wait for opinions and not make more changes. Thanks.--Santos30 (talk) 07:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Your words say it all:

• • "My main problem is I can not find any source that clearly specifies the end date of the Crown of Castile, in Spanish or English" Google traslation.
  • Mi principal problema es que no encuentro ninguna fuente que especifique claramente la fecha de finalización de la Corona de Castilla, ni en español ni en inglés..... --Enric Naval (discusión) 22:27 21 nov 2012 (UTC) [1]

--Santos30 (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't changed anything in Crown of Castile. Maybe you mean Talk:New_Spain#flag_was_the_.22estandarte_virreinal.22?

You have found even less sources for the end being in 1812, so..... --Enric Naval (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Bueno, he leído las respuestas en Wikipedia español que ha estado haciendo y todos dicen a su pesar que no hay biblografía que diga que la corona de Castilla terminó en 1716. No existe. Wikipedia español se convierte en una fuente primaria. Nadie lo dice solo Wikipedia español. El problema de la enorme metedura de pata en wikipedia español, y no tiene arreglo por ser tan garrafal y de concepto, es que dicen que la soberanía está en los consejos o tribunales de cada reino, etc. Gravísimo fallo y que solo les lleva un absurdo tras otro absurdo y no se bajarán del burro. La cuestión es otra muy distinta pues ¿dónde está o reside la soberanía?. Nada más y nada menos. La soberanía reside en el trono de Castilla, en la persona del rey de España, hasta que la soberanía fue transferida al pueblo español o el pueblo hispanoamericanos.--Santos30 (talk) 10:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

They also said that 1812 doesn't make sense. And there is no bibliography saying that it ends in 1812. You are just making original research, and picking one of the abolitions of the councils over the rest of abolitions. See this for a good explanation. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. You should read Talk:Spanish Empire/Archive 4#Flag of Carlism & Talk:Spanish Empire/Archive 4#Continuation (but first read carefully the last two paragraphs of this link, probably it helps you to understand the arguments on that talk).
It that talk page you will find this link, that flag with the Cross of Burgundy over a white field shows in the tip of each arm the escutcheon, or coat of arms, of Mexico City. It used to be at the Museo Nacional de Historia, as you can see, is the same flag at the draw on your right.
This flag (with a red Cross of Burgundy over a white field with lions and castles) was captured in 1829, it belonged to Isidro Barradas. If you don't know who was this man, you can read more here. Two years ago was returned to Spain, well, actually there was an exchange as you can read here or here. Please, don't miss this link, take a look at page 1 and page 4:

Curioso es que el denominador común de las cuatro banderas españolas y mexicanas que participaron en el intercambio sea que todas cargan las Aspas de Borgoña o Cruces de San Andrés de la monarquía. En todas, pues, está presente el rey Fernando. En las banderas gemelas de los Dragones de la Reina, tanto las Aspas de Borgoña como los guiones militares del ejército borbónico se incluyeron a los costados del águila para significarlo. La empresa era preservar a la patria, la Nueva España, de caer en manos de los franceses que por entonces dominaban la Península Ibérica y amenazaban la religión católica. Que los lienzos de Barradas ostenten las Aspas de Borgoña como elemento central o motivo de la composición no amerita explicarse. Estas fueron un legado de Felipe el Hermoso al rey Carlos V y se mantuvieron en uso hasta 1843. Aquello que las banderas de Isidro Barradas aportan al conocimiento general de la guerra que sostuvieron los insurgentes y los realistas entre 1810 y 1821, son las composiciones emblemáticas que lucen declarando la reconquista de México. Para imprimirles este mensaje de victoria sus artífices se valieron de los escudos de distinción españoles con los que el rey condecoró, tras su restauración en el trono, a los militares realistas por sus méritos guerreros sobre la insurgencia de los últimos años.

[...]

Enseñan mucho las banderas. El conocimiento que teníamos del primer día en que se luchó con las armas por una libertad exenta de opresión cambió al conocerlas. También por las banderas del primer día podemos confirmar que no exclusivamente pelearon en la guerra de Independencia emblemas mexicanos contra españoles. El nacionalismo, exaltando sus símbolos, no era dado a poner en paralelo a los escudos españoles enarbolados por 'los otros' mexicanos. Novohispanos no afectos a la independencia, que al tomar las armas del lado del rey determinaron el carácter civil de la guerra, de los que no hablamos, e insurgentes que lucharon por la independencia siguiendo leales al rey y portando sus emblemas. Sin conocerse las banderas de Ignacio Allende poco se tenía en mente el uso de las Aspas de Borgoña por los contingentes castrenses del primer movimiento. Buscar la diversidad en los hechos del pasado pudo favorecernos ya que faltaba comprender la evolución simbólica de una guerra donde no se puede negar la diversidad de posturas populares, clericales, militares, matizadas por un imaginario compartido y por la amistad o desprecio hacia los europeos. Aspas de Borgoña y guiones españoles se enfrentaron por los dos costados en este primer movimiento. No debemos olvidar que los poseían, por reglamento, los otros regimientos 'pasados' que abandonaron al gobierno español declarándose leales al rey, los de Querétaro, Pátzcuaro, Valladolid y Celaya. Nuestra primera guerra civil regó excesiva sangre bajo los blasones de Fernando VII. Los partes realistas reportaron todavía un Aspa de Borgoña capturada —no recuperada— en Acatita de Baján en marzo de 1811.

Best regards Jaontiveros (talk) 05:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I made ​​my comment, but my English is not as good as should be, I hope they will understand me. Jaontiveros (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: abiogenic petroleum, seems Speight does use "proven" but in a slightly different context - have changed to "established". I have an aversion to saying "proven" in a science article, proofs are for math, and science is always open to new discoveries. Vsmith (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it's one of those semantic problems, like the difference between "proposed", "hypothesized" and "theorized". --Enric Naval (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to comment on a user conduct discussion regarding Paul Bedson, which can be found here. If you comment there you may wish to review the rules for user conduct comments first. You are receiving this notification because you were involved in the AE discussion last year. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Enric! You have inserted a speedy on zorpia which is fine considering the deletion shitstory, however the talk page is protected so it is not quite possible to debate about it. Since I am not admin I cannot unprot the page so right now I kindly remove the template and leave a message at the beep (comment) not to reinsert it until the talk page is thawed. I do not oppose the template, let me say again, just right now it's impossible to debate it. (By the way I think the aricle contains new information inserted by me, consider it whether it changes the big picture. :-)) Thanks. --grin ✎ 10:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I commented at the unprotection request. Let's see if we can make something with that article. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I do rest assured. :-D Good catch! 174.51.31.120 (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it lasted 40 minutes, that's a lot of time :-) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA#MMA_Event_Notability. Kevlar (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I am notifying all participants in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva that Dicklyon has moved to close the RFC/U, with a summary on the talkpage. Editors may now support or oppose the motion, or add comments:

• Link to the move to close

Please consider adding your signature, so that the matter can be resolved.

Best wishes,

Noetica^Tea? 04:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

On 26 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article ORCA (computer system), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the "get out the vote" system used by Mitt Romney in the 2012 United States presidential election crashed repeatedly on election day, depriving his campaign of last-minute information? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/ORCA (computer system). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 00:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I have asked User:Armbrust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to undo closure, for more discussion:

• User_talk:Armbrust#Premature closure of Sila-Nunam RM

Armbrust had been blocked several times, in recent months, for edit-warring. Apparently, some users were unaware of the official hyphenated name, as if a married name, for the whole binary system, in the manner of a hyphenated surname which would be used for all children (or references) of that family. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I replied there. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hola Enric. Échale un vistazo a Crown of Aragon, porque Santos 30 sigue introduciendo sus absurdas ediciones. Escarlati (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the confederation thing seems to be sourced. We need a source that explains why it's a confederation. Or a source explaining why it's not a confederation in spite of being called that in some sources. In the latter case, it can be removed from the infobox.

Bueno, lo de la confederación parece tener fuentes. Necesitamos una fuente que explique por qué es una confederación. O una fuente explicando por qué no es una confederación a pesar de recibir ese nombre en algunas fuentes. En este último caso, se puede quitar de la infobox --Enric Naval (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• [2]

  "In case it wasn't already evident that he is a troll".Eric Naval.

Stop your uncivil behavior.--Santos30 (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Santos30, during the last months you hav been inserting POV that exaggerates the role of Castilian symbols and the existence of the Crown of Castile. First in eswiki, now here in enwiki. In defending your edits, you have ignored sources that contradicted your position, and distorted other sources to pretend that they support your position. You have also edit-warred against multiple editors, claimed that your edits were supported by the sources, and removed sourced info while claiming that you were following the references. I have spent hours looking for solid references, only to see how you pretended they didn't exist and how you distorted sources to keep pushing the same flawed argument. And this point I can only agree with the description of "troll", and I won't be very sad if finally manage to get yourself blocked or banned from the English wikipedia.

Change your behaviour. Or, at least, stop editing those articles and go edit articles related to American independence. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Enric. I mentioned your name in a comment I just left at User talk:Santos30#Possible indefinite block of your account. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I missed your work on Balkans articles for a while... nice to have you back! bobrayner (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yummy! I have tasted this in certain Arab food stands in Spain. Next time I'll ask the owners if they are from the Balkans. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. In particular, I have suggested that you be included in the topic bad that will most likely be applied to Apteva, because you exhibit precisely the same a similar tendentious editing pattern on this issue. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 20:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have replied in the AN thread. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at WP:Administrators' noticeboard#enric's talk page. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib.

Link actually works now. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	In particular for the ongoing discussion on Star Trek into Darkness regarding a pesky little I. At the end of the day, it may not have been resolved but we all did work together to try and get it sorted, even if we did feel at times we were banging our heads on our desks and calling our computer screens idiots. MisterShiney ✉ 14:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I know that feeling of frustration. Years ago, when dealing with certain banned user, I had to hit the poor mouse against the table. Poor little mouse. What can I say, I'm using a laptop and hitting my head against the keyboard with too much force can result in expensive damage and loss of data in the hard disk due to the vibrations :-) Man, I really need a laptop with a Solid-state drive....

When I see a heated discussion, I always try to read the arguments, search a few sources, and compile a reasoned argument based in said sources. Many times the participants realize that they were being too argumentative, and the discussion gets back into track. Other times, it has no effect.... Oh, well, you can't win always. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Enric, Happy New Year. I've mentioned you in an ArbCom case request submission. While you are not a party, your comments would be appreciated. LittleBen (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Enric, regarding my modifications on the Talk mentioned in the section headline, I leaves me in a bad mood. The reason is simple to explain, I didn't feel that I did something wrong and no one told me how to do it correct, just pointing on my mistakes and leaving me like criminal (finally with heavy warnings on my page). Finally you did the right thing (shift to archive), thanks to your valued contribution. I simply didn't know that this can be done, I would have done. Anyway, I considered that this needs to much attention from me, if the system continues that way, probably you have a chance to change. thx --Bienengasse (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, you had bad luck this time. You did the right thing by asking for help in a noticeboard. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added Greenawalt's paper on Milos Obilic, albeit rather condensed.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. These days I can only find time for brief edits to the wikipedia. Not enough time to read whole papers and make long detailed edits. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I will try to explain this in detail. The article now says:

The earliest sources on the Battle of Kosovo, which generally favour the cult of Prince Lazar, do not mention Miloš or his assassination of the sultan.[11] The assassination itself is first reported by Coluccio Salutati (died 1406), Chancellor of Florence, in his letter to King Tvrtko I of Bosnia (r. 1353-1391), dated 20 October 1389

But it is this letter that is one of the earliest sources on the Battle of Kosovo (written in the year of the battle), and it does mention the assassination of the sultan.

So, the first sentence says "the earliest sources do not mention Milos or his assassination of the sultan", while the second sentence says "one of the earliest sources reports the assassination of the sultan". Therefore, the two sentences contradict each other.

What is true, however, is that the letter doesn't mention assassin's name. So an easy way to correct this is what I did: I wrote that the earliest sources do not mention Milos by name. Nothing that you have cited contradicts this. Nikola (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Oooops, you are right. That sentence can't be correct. I was probably getting confused with the first Serbian epics not giving much importance to the battle. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

No, didn't hit any edit conflicts. Thanks for your work on the article, it's definitely looking a lot better now. --McGeddon (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe the lead paragraph is not necessary for the purposes of a Wikipedia article intended purely for learning about the subject. It is still argumentative due to the use of the work "most". I would suggest using the word "many" instead.

Just for thought...I don't believe one way or another about the validity of the theory. However, I do know that aspects of the mechanisms discussed in the theory are valid and therefore may one day lead a young reader of your article to discover something very important to humanity. It would be regrettable for poorly chosen words to bias a growing mind before they have formed their own opinions on a subject. Don't underestimate the power of your words in such a forum that will be considered gospel by the coming generations.

Keep up the good work!49.176.6.199 (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

All modern textbooks on geology state the biological explanation as the only explanation. And educative books, almost all scholar books on geology, etc. I can't say "all" because there are obviously a few geologists who believe in the theory. But they seem to be a minority. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Crazynas ^t 07:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've seen that from the page history that you attempted to get the page deleted a while back. I've put the article up for AFD and I'm currently dealing with an editor who singlehandedly turned the page from a neutrally written article that passed AFC into some anti-Zorpia creed who has blatantly said that he wants all of the "spam" information on Wikipedia because it is helpful.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the joys of editing controversial articles. I'll take a look but I can't promise anything. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have opened a sockpuppet investigation of Santos30.[3] Edward321 (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

They're back, editing around the block. Perhaps you could ask for semi-protection of the page again? Edward321 (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in holiday. Someone else already protected the pages. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

On the writing style of the dialog in Mirabello's book, Mirabello says this in his Introduction:

"The dialogue that resulted is a mosaic made from the fragments of numerous discussions that occurred over several years, and it is not the actual record of one conversation with one individual. Moreover, since most of my sources did not speak English as a first language, the quest for clarity has forced me to use my own words to express their ideas. In all instances, however, I was careful to preserve the fundamental integrity of the message."

--Heathenguy (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll reply in your talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Enric Naval. You have new messages at Template talk:Copy to Wikimedia Commons.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You were part of a discussion on the above template talk page. I have some questions/thoughts. Sorry for the late discussion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Government recognition and the Financial Regulatory Authority are the most respectived references in the industry for the CFA, CFP and AAFM articles. Nobody is sure why anyone would want to remove the FINRA and US Government references. Moreover, the Wall Street Journal and the FINRA reference the AAFM accredited education and exams from ACBSP and AACSB.

If you have a business school graduate education such as an MBA or PhD or DBA, you would instantly know that the AACSB and ACBSP are the top educational institutions in the world by ranking. i.e. Wharton, NYU, Stanford etc.

Please do not whitewash the article of basic facts from the financial industry. I was simply trying to revive an article similar to CFP and CFA Institute. The goal is that this article should mirror similar articles. See CFP Board and CFA Institute for more clarity.

All of the criticism remains, but the article has been improved to include basic information from accreditation authorities, financial regulators, and the US government. Even the Wall Street Journal references the AACSB and ACBSP accredited exam and course standards of the American Academy.

It would be greatly appreciated if you could refine the article to remove any commentary that is not neutral. Since there is much great press, references and authoritative citations to add, I respect your judgement in improving the article and not whitewashing all of the research. It seems that even RJC has just now removed the claim that AAFM offers a college degree. Whoever posted that stuff about degrees and diplomas is way out of line. It seems that there are a lot of folks with COI issues in relation to this article because of the hateful posts and constant reverts etc.

Wealthadvise (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)weatlhadviseWealthadvise (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I replied in your user talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I found four independent reliable source references about Zonnon so I re-established the article WhisperToMe (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

As noted here, the following has been posted online and a rough facsimile was emailed to the functionaries email list earlier this week, and then forwarded to the Foundation legal department.  Frank  |  talk  03:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I have seen it. Thanks for the notice. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

"merchants asked that Mother's Day be moved to the third Sunday of October to stimulate sales in the second half of that month"???

sorry but that's not a fact Adnrabbit (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You mean that it's an incorrect fact?

It seems to originate from this text, by "Lic. en Administracion y Ciencias Politicas, Filosofo, escritor y ensayista Ramon D. Peralta". It's a blog, but the other source is also a blog. So, I don't see how one can be better than the other.

And I don't know why you remove this other source. Surely you are not arguing that the blog of Padre Fabian is more reliable than the es:ACI Prensa! --Enric Naval (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

all are opinionated pieces, to be honest I don't have a clue who the hell are any of these people. I removed that article because is about the 'dangers' of feminism (um what?) and it doesn't add anything that we don't know. I just linked "Padre Fabian"(!) to have a source, nothing more, plus the article was well written. It is vox populi that they changed the day by popular tradition. Why would you want stimulate sales in the second half of a MONTH??? It doesn't makes sense. What difference makes? And I know that Mother's day was celebrated on the third Sunday of October BEFORE the eighties, although I'm not sure if it was officially recognized. Again, POPULAR TRADITION. So I will change it back to my edit. --Adnrabbit (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think that I found a source that covers a lot of details. The third sunday was established in 1941 by the Club de Madres and the Consejo Nacional de Educación. It was called, apparently the "Día de la Madre Universal". The reason: "¿Por qué octubre? Se argumentó que los alumnos de primer grado ya estaban capacitados para expresarse por escrito; que la temperatura favorecía los festejos al aire libre y que el domingo era el día que podía compartirse en familia." Other source says that spring arrives to Argentina in October because it's in the Southern hemispher[4] (implying that spring arrives in May to the North hemisphere, and they made that choice in purpose to fit the season)

The church also celebrated the "Día de la Madre Catolica" in the second Sunday, but it looks like it was abandoned.

This fits with comments that I found in personal websites[5][6].

This should be enough to write up a good explanation of the holiday.

P.D.: And a 1939 source by the Ministerio de Educación saying that Mother's Day was set in 11th October "La Plata, agosto 8 de 1939 (...) RESUELVE: Fijar el 11 de octubre de todos los años como el 'Día de la Madre', destinándose esa fecha para conmemorar (...)"[7]. Maybe it was first set at 11 October, then changed in 1941 to the third Sunday? --Enric Naval (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Please don't shoot me; I'm the messenger. In case you've not seen it already at Talk:American Academy of Financial Management, I'm here to let you know about this page; it seems a thoroughly frivolous complaint, but it still might be worth your attention, since you (well, someone named "Eric Naval") are named in the complaint. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen it. Thanks for warning me, anyways. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It's been a while since I went to WikiPilipinas, continuing from where I left off a few years ago. Unfortunately, the "Hoax" issue still continues in that site. I still saw hoax parts in Metro_Manila_Radio this template, wherein the last false edits were done around October last year by users Romar9126, Russel.Liwag & Pia Gonzales 5. Hoax stations/pages that are DZAK, DZRN & DZAP.

I recently tried to edit the template back by removing the hoax there, but the problem is: That template has been "locked to prevent editing." I'm just concerned with the hoaxes, I want them to be removed. Since the WikiPilipinas users can't remove the hoaxes, can't the admins there do anything to remove them & make that site Hoax-free? SUPERASTIG (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. First leave a message in the template's talk page, listing which entries are hoaxes. Then leave a message in their "hangout" page, asking for help to remove the hoaxes.

I am not familiar with that wiki. This is all I can do. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. However, the problem is that both of those pages are also "locked to prevent editing." The last known message in the "hangout" page was around mid-last year. Probably, since the end of last year, the admin of Wikipilipinas had blocked most of the pages to prevent user to edit it. So, we users concluded right now that we cannot do anything with it to remove the hoaxes. In other words, everything in Wikipilipinas is left untouched & unedited That's probably the way it goes. Again, thanks for the reply. SUPERASTIG (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Enric Naval, we are a Croatian team of researchers who are looking at the editing dynamics on different language Wikipedias and are focusing specifically on the topic of Kosovo. We are looking for editors who have participated in editing, or discussing, articles about this topic, and who would be willing to be interviewed for the purpose of this research project. This is a project approved by the Wikimedia Foundations´ Research Committee and you can find more information on this meta-wiki page. Research results will be published under an open access license and your participation would be much appreciated. If you would like to participate you can reach us at our talk page or directly at [email protected] and we will set up an interview in a way that best suits your needs. Pbilic (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Because you keep reverting like a red scare victim, I'd like to ask for hard evidence where in h*ll did you actually find evidence of "Communists" sabotaging or demoralizing, I believe you are referring to Soviet sabotaging. Referring to "Communists" is by all means wrong because referring to "Communists" As sabotaging or demoralizing crews means that an "ACTUAL" Communist committed this acts, in no history books written by Norwegians nor documents could I ever find that actual "Communists" Have been doing these acts against Nortraship. And therefore I'd like you to point out the evidence, there is only one place I could ever find the mention of "Communists" Sabotaging and demoralizing Nortraship crews and that was on some fishy website with no references and no sources to their written content. By all means prove me wrong, or I will continue to revert it because it's miss information and propaganda. --SMGJohn (talk) 02:15, 22 Juli 2013 (UTC+01:00)

Regarding Norwegian communists and socialists, I replied on your talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

How can I take you seriously if you refuse everything? I'm suppose to believe you are magically going to agree with anything all of a sudden? Thats not going to happen. There is no reason to think you would agree with anything I suggest. The problem I have with this is that it has nothing to do with the suggestion. It doesn't matter how trivial the proposal is. You've just shown me this.

There was no need to divide the topic because your team is not going to seriously address anything I write before you get rid of it.

What else do you think you are going to do?

84.106.26.81 (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Seriously,

Say, I'm going to post any sort of proposal on the talk page.

Then what are you going to do?

What do you think you are going to do? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

How do you suggest other editors should assume good faith after you've shown them that nothing will ever be accepted? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you have gotten that impression from me. I assure that I opposed some of your proposals based on the merits of the proposal, not on the fact that it came from you (whoever you are).

Also, I only opposed the changes in the "some unnecessary things" section.

I am in favor of removing the redundancies of the Scientific American article, I just think that the alternatives solutions are ugly (but I am going to implement them anyways, you convinced me that reducing the "wall of links" is more important than pretty formatting).

I am neutral about the change proposed in Talk:Cold_fusion#Misconceived_reversion_by_DV. I didn't look at this because I thought that I had my copy of the Labinger source back at home in the backup disk, but I just checked and it is in my laptop. I am going to look at it.

--Enric Naval (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, you cant be expected to remember every IP address. Sorry about this. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I am working on a new template here, but need your input in light of your comment here. I am also seeking to improve the intro in light of User:AGK's comment. Please come to the template's talk page and help me. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a good idea, but I don't have opinion or input on the template. I have made a modification in Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Arbitration_cases. I don't know if this page is now up-to-date or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey Enric Naval. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You participated in this recent clarification request. This message is to inform you that the clarification request has been closed and archived. If you would like to read the arbitrators' opinion section, the request has been archived to here. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 08:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings and thank you for your contributions to WP. I have proposed a format for references on Alternative medicine. I wanted to let you know and give you an opportunity to comment here. Good day! - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Your edit sumamry here was misleading, as what you did was very different from undoing my edit. You need to be careful to make sure that your edit summaries accurately reflect what you are doing. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, next time I'll try a different approach when writing the edit summary. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

While the subject area is reproducibility in astrophysics rather than materials science, you may appreciate this oldie-but-goodie. I first ran across it in a print collection a couple of decades ago, but it keeps coming to mind for some reason....

Liebovich, L.S. (1974) "Discovery of a new radiation source Z-1 in Taurus" Q. J. Roy. Astro. Soc. 15:141-145.

Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Pure win.

This type of paper is all too familiar to me. In Abiogenic petroleum origin there are papers saying that one oil field is of abiogenic origin. Thus, it can be deduced that every oil field must be abiogenic. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Note [8], which I have removed, IRWolfie- (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The supposed attack is an impression based on a hasty conclusion. I was about to give the details sustaining the so-called atack--5.15.198.117 (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC).

Hello, Enric Naval. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed_decision#Pseudoscience

Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized

Christian Science appears to generally be studied as a New religious movement and not as "pseudoscience." You might want to read [9]. The connection of CS to PS in popul;ar literature diminished greatly after 1920. Page 205 specifies that CS is a "religion."

[10] Williams states that Eddy did not use "science" in the same sense as "orthodox scientists."

Real googlebook results number under 100 (at that point, the hits do not necessarily contain the search terms) (1.1K gross hits in books)

"Christian Science" + "religion" gets well over a thousand real hits (I got bored at that point) (191K gross hits)

Cirt and others got into problems for their manner of handling NRMs so I trust you will understand that a hundred to one ration in books might be considered significant. Questia search only finds 7 books for "Christian Science" + "pseudoscience". 1,038 for "Christian Science" + "religion." Cheers -- and the templating idea is not really that great. Collect (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

According to your first source, in the second half of the XXth century a lot of religion-related stuff was labelled as pseudoscience. page 196: "Just as they had during the late 1800s, differences between science and religion loomed large in characterizations of pseudoscience, although in precisely the opposite way than they had before. Rather than signaling the over-aggressive separation of scientific and religious concerns, American during the second half of the twentieth century more often linked pseudoscience to the illegitimate mixture of science and religion. Charges of pseudoscience aimed at a wide variety of targets, from creationism to UFOs to federal standards for organic food, all of which were denounced as involving religious motivations rather than scientific ones." I can't read page 205, but it looks

I find your second source irrelevant: we are talking of mainstream scientists calling something pseudoscience, not what the receivers of the label call themselves. Never mind that the source is an encyclopedia of pseudoscience and lists "Creation science" as one of its entries.

As I said before, there are enough sources of enough quality to warrant inclusion in the list. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

And how many current books make the overt statement you seek? And how many call it "religion"? And the ratio is? And what percentage of books holding a view are needed not to properly assert that a view is "fringe"? Where well under 1% of the sources make the connection you seek, I suggest that <1% is "fringe." Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, how many sources in that 99% are explicitly saying that Christian science is only a religion and is not related at all to science? (and how many of such sources are independent from this Church, and were written by people who had good reputation among serious scientists). --Enric Naval (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I spent time on Questia - your turn. Tell me how many Questia sources explicitly call CS "pseudoscience". Cheers -- you ask for more than 50 hours of work with your demand at a minimum. I can tell you than I am not a CS member or adherent, and that trying to find out who among thousands of authors is connected in any way to CS is likely a fool's errand. Collect (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't need to meet any arbitrarily number. As I said before, the sources in the article are already enough to warrant inclusion in the list. The burden of proof was already met for inclusion. And you still haven't presented any source that actually counters them. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Mind you, the entry could be tweaked to specify which parts of Christian Science are causing it to be considered pseudoscience. --~~

Hello Enric Naval,
I think that, by now, we have given a decent reply to Collect's assessment of the sources and found them unconvincing. He seems unable to provide any "real scientist" or RS to back up his claims. Shall we restore Searches for Noah's Ark to the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience? Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)2014 (UTC)

Curiously enough, Wikipedia is not a high school debating society -- I presented material from reliable sources related to the general scientific community in Israel and "biblical archeology" which is the broad topic at issue as

Yes, we should do that. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:05, 11 January the "finding of the ark" is clearly pseudoscience, but searching for biblical sites is not pseudoscience. You are simply pursuing WP:OR in your debate style -- the requirement that any editor be an expert on any topic or to "prove" anything is actually contrary to how Wikipedia works - we only use what the reliable sources state. I suggest your desire to re-add the material is actually contrary to how [[WP:CONSENSUS[[ works. Cheers. `Collect (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Collect, I'll repeat for the last time, "biblical archeology" in Israel is irrelevant to searches for Noah's Ark. Wherever the "Mountains of Ararat" may be located (be it Turkey, Armenia, Syria etc.), they are definitely not to be found inside the territory of the present-day State of Israel. Please, examine a few maps of the Middle East if this wasn't clear to you yet. Since you were unable to give us a name of a "real scientist" (you have to be more specific than "the general scientific community in Israel") or that has done research to find Noah's Ark by following the scientific method (disregarding all those who claimed to have found it) and are once again not delivering any reliable sources –unlike Enric and I have done–, you have not given any useful input other than systematically disagreeing. WP:OR does not apply in our case (we've named Dundes, Rickard & Michell, Prothero, Williams, Feder, Fagan & Beck, Cline and again Fagan), but it does in yours; your argument backfires. The only "source" you have provided was Livingstone et al, which is not fully accessible, but the snippets I was able to view mostly talked about films and books about Noah and the Ark; just 2 had anything to do with our subject: "...Armenians as Massis, and is actually but one contender among several sites associated with the mountains of Ararat in the story of Noah. The modern ark hunters belief that this particular mountain is the site where Noahs Ark came to rest is based largely upon..." (p.246), again revealing how inaccurate "modern ark hunters" are doing their geographical homework, and "...evangelicalism the widespread conviction that the ancient Ark of Noah is embedded in ice high atop Mount Ararat, waiting to be found..." (p.245), which merely points to the "conviction" it can be found and the motivation to go look for it among this evangelical demographic. You also appear not to understand what WP:CON means: we disagreed with your revert, discussed it and reached a compromise, which includes the concession not to name it "arkeology", but does not have to be unanimous to be acceptable. You are always free to reopen the discussion when you have RS to back up your claims, but for now, we are moving on. Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Ultimata are not a great way to seek WP:CONSENSUS. Try meeting me on this as I find "or else" stuff to be quite objectionable. My suggestion was that we label "finding of the Ark" as pseudoscience, but that we also note that "real archaeologists" do, indeed, work on "biblical archaeology." Is there any solid ground for refusing such a reasonable statement? Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

We've not given any ultimata, let alone somehow "threatened" you; in fact, I've kept the option open for you to challenge the newly-reached consensus with RS once the edit is done. Actually, there is a solid ground to refuse your statement, because it's a logical fallacy (and calling it "reasonable" makes this a loaded question):

• Premise 1: Searches for Noah's Ark are part of "biblical archaeology"
• Premise 2: Some "real archaeologists" work on "biblical archaeology"
• Conclusion: Therefore, some people searching for Noah's Ark are "real archaeologists" -> Fallacy of the undistributed middle. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice if you deal with what I write and not create a series of syllogisms which I did not write. It is very hard to follow [[WP:CONSENSUS[[ when one person seems hell-bent on their way or the highway. I presented what appears to me to be reasonable wording, and I fear that you are so intent on being "right' that you forget how collaborative editing actually works. Please have a cup of tea and do not try your list of false syllogisms on me again. What I have iterated is that the finding of the ark is pseudoarchaeology, but that biblical archaeology as a general well-recognized field within archaeology is not pseudoarchaeology, and any wording must make that distinction clear to the reader. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Give us a RS saying searches for Noah's Ark is science then. It's not that hard, is it? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Try dealing with my suggestion instead of assuming a combative stance, please. I am not desirous of jousting - only of giving readers accurate information - and the accurate information is precisely what I suggested here. At no point have I said the "finding of the ark" is science - the problem is the current wording appears to include a great deal which is not the "finding of the ark." Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Then let's be clear here. There are three "levels of investigation" involved, two of which you and I both agree. First: so-called "biblical archaeology" is a "real science", I don't dispute that and have never done so. Second: claims to have found Noah's Ark are pseudoscientific, you don't dispute that and have never done so. So, let's stop arguing about those two levels and discuss the one in between: whether the entire enterprise of investigating the location of Noah's Ark is to be considered pseudoscientific or has at least some scientific validity. Do you agree? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Those people fall into two categories: Those who "know" what they will find, and do not use scientific methodology in the first place as a rule. And those who look not claiming to know exactly what they will find and who generally do use scientific methodology (my old acquaintance Doc Edgerton was that sort of person in real life). I am quite loath to call that "pseudoscience" thus my suggestion as to the reasonable line of demarcation -- that of suggesting the "finding" is pseudoscience, but the general field is not specifically "pseudoscience." Thus not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Good. Can you name an equivalent of Doc Edgerton in the field of searching for Noah's Ark? Remember that your personal opinion on whether the qualification "pseudoscience" is appriopriate is irrelevant, unless you can back it up with evidence to the contrary (that overrides the evidence Enric and I have supplied). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess you missed the fact that Doc searched for the Loch Ness Monster. Cheers Collect (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I did, but how is that relevant? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

And Atlantis [11] etc.  ? Collect (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

So? What about Noah's Ark? Stop throwing in red herrings, please. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Collect? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I respond to serious discussions. This one does not meet those criteria. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, in that case I suppose you will not object when we restore Searches for Noah's Ark to the List. Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

If that is indicative of the esteem you hold WP:CONSENSUS in, I suggest you that the demurral will be quite loud. Cheers -- and I urgently suggest you not try this particular "debating tactic" with others who are not quite as easygoing as I. Collect (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I replied to your post on the talk page. Twinkle talk back refuses to work for this even when I select 'other page' instead of 'other user talk page' or w.e it says. NDKilla 03:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

this? BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You should really correct your post on Talk:Cold_fusion

In May 2008 Japanese researcher Yoshiaki Arata (Osaka University) demonstrated an experiment that produced heat when deuterium gas was introduced into a cell containing a mixture of palladium and zirconium oxide.[text 5] In an August 2009 peer-reviewed paper Akira Kitamura (Kobe University) et al. reported replication of this experiment.[88] Replication of earlier work by Arata had been claimed by McKubre at SRI.[89]

Cold fusion is a smallish field that got a lot of publicity years ago. In those months of glory, it earned a place in popular culture. And there is an intriguing story of how science announcements can go bad. And another story about how scientists can stick to a field after most scientists have abandoned it, mostly because of Pascal's wager (if it worked, it would every energy need in the world!!! Even if the chance of success is beyond minuscule, the earnings of succeeding are so great that it justifies spending any amount of money!!!!!!! Imagine if it turns out to be true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). But there is not much beyond that. After +20 year there is no independent verification of any significant advance in getting heat from that process. We can't report the advances on this field because there hasn't been any, despite the many claims of replication.

You can do better than this.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I will try harder to ignore the uninteresting parts of your postings.... ehh focus on the good parts.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I see one scientist reporting a replication years ago. Then years pass and pass without anyone verifying that this experiment doesn't have flaws. Then another scientist reports a replication of the same experiment. Again, years go by without getting any news or papers. The second experiment never gets checked by other scientists. Then another scientist makes a third replications, which is again unverified by any independent observer. These are still isolated claims of replication, with no follow-ups and no independent checking. Each replication could be suffering from the exact same flaws, because they never have independent. In particular, Arata has not allowed any outside scientist to examine the demonstrated device.

In the first months after the initial experiment there were many claims of positive replication that never had any followup. Nobody hear about them again. Nobody ever explained why they didn't refine their methods to get better results, or why they didn't simply get it verified by outside researchers. With the current evidence we can just conclude that they discovered a methodological flaw and they quietly abandoned the experiment without telling anybody that they had made a blunder (this sentence can be sourced to Hizenga's book). This looks totally like the same phenomena.

Those scientists could invite other scientists to verify several experiments, or could make several demonstrations. They don't do it. Arata would literally win the Nobel Prize of Physics if he could get his demonstration repeated by independent scientists. Like Stanley Meyer's car, they never send their experiments to independent entities for verification. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to create an article about the Pons and Fleismann press release in specific and further expand it.

Do you understand?

84.106.26.81 (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Cold_fusion#Restoration_of_Fleischmann-Pons_experiment. You have only restored the copy/pasted version from November 2011, and you haven't addressed any of my arguments. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

How does it feel when your arguments are being ignored? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I am very sorry that you are taking that attitude. Your previous arguments were not "ignored", they were evaluated by other editors, and they were found to be unconvincing.

How about you take a few days to write up the article and make it into something worthwhile. If after a few days it's still in a bad state, I'll just nominate it for deletion, and ask others to consider my arguments (and yours). --Enric Naval (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand your idea of colaboration is that I do the work and you complaint about it. That is fine of course but you should follow the guidelines. I have 6 editors now accusing me of things they imagine I will do in the future.[12] Thats just not within policy.

If you don't want me to ignore your arguments you should accuse me of things I've actually done. Complete with evidence of it.

It is what the assumption of good faith was all about remember? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand that you want an article written, so you should be the one a) writing it and b) convincing other editors to help you.

I used to bitch about the sorry state of Valentine's Day and Mother's Day until I realized that I would have to do most of the work myself. That involves buying lots of English-language books in Amazon, hours of reading sources, lots of taking notes, hours of editing, acting on talk-page complaints, adding suggestions from other editors, find sources for additions made by other editors, arguing with people who want to use less-than-ideal-quality sources, re-organizing the article, fixing related articles, etc.

Sometimes another editor drops by and adds new content, or corrects mistakes, or chides me for misinterpreting a source. I try to accept the criticism and corrections with a positive outlook. Many times I have told off for bad English, and I have tried to write better. Many times I have been told off for totally mixing up what a source said, and I have tried to read sources twice before using them. And many times I have made the legwork for someone else's content, because the content was valuable for the article.

And nobody tells you "Thank you". You get the satisfaction from improving the sum of human knowledge about a topic. Even if the topic is only a smallish corner of knowledge. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You appear to have got your magic-teapot manufacturers confused. ;) [13] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed! After a while, the claims of these companies always start resembling a bit to each other. There must be a secret manual somewhere, explaining how to promote a free energy company. :-D --Enric Naval (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address one or more redirects you have created. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I bring to your attention that I have explained on talk:water memory the reasons why your opposition to my proposed rephrasing are untenable.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I have replied there. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

(pPplease pPpronounce with a stSTstutter...) (;->

Thanks for your posts at the move review... but at the comment linking to Archive_13#capitalization of word following hyphen in bird names it's a redlink... archive of what? Andrewa (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJayaguru-Shishya&diff=602771016&oldid=602768296 What on earth are you ranting at my user talk page? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That edit was made by RexxS, not by me. My edit was about something else. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You participated in the discussion about the inclusion of Rick ross in that article. That editor is now claiming there was a consensus to include all that info. Might want to take a pass by the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Enric Naval,

JzG is over the wall. Do you mind if I revert his whole deletion? He might show some sense if he sees opposition from multiple directions.

As far as I can see, he has made no attempts at constructive contributions. Aqm2241 (talk) 09:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I noticed this edit you made a short time ago. Firstly, maintenance templates do not go in the middle of text body. Secondly, by using that template to admit that you've unabashedly copy/pasted from another, possibly non-free source does not give you a free pass to do so. You should always write the material in your own words and back it up with the source, not simply copy/paste it and slap a template on it and expect other people to fix it for you. Antoshi ☏ ★ 14:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It was copy/pasted by a new editor in the previous edit[14]. You are right about everything, but I couldn't fix it at that moment (I had to take a bus later). --Enric Naval (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear sir, hello. Im sorry to see that you made some major edits to the article Tanoli which , although certainly done in good faith and with good intentions, seems to me to be far from the accepted versions of origins and background etc. I think there are two distinct sides to this argument and bot should be represented, as they were in a previous version; and I hope youll please be kind enough to revert to that. Ive also left a note on the talk page of the article, and I hope youll read that in the proper spirit and respond accordingly, thanks. Yours sincerely 39.54.207.44 (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Col (retd) Mumtaz Khan (Tanoli), from Hazara, Pakistan

I replied there. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed that you said somewhere (on talk:cold fusion if i remember exactly) that you have (read) Huizenga's book. Could you provide more details of quotes mentioned in the text 10 from cold fusion article (from p 33 &47?) that directly mention Huot's paper from Electrochimica Acta?--188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Bush mission accomplished.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I am already aware of the sanctions. I participated in several of those arbitration cases, you know :) . But thanks anyways. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

On July 17th, 2013, a US Federal Judge ordered that all of the of seven lawsuit counterclaims by AAFM and Mentz could go forward to court against the former trainers: Brett King, Geoff Baring and the IABFM. The US Court order stated that AAFM and Mr. George Mentz could sue Mr. Brett King, Mr. Geoffrey Baring and IABFM individually for numerous lawsuit counts in federal court including: (1) theft (2) defamation, (3) breach of contract, (4) intentional interference with contractual relationships,(5) conspiracy, (6) copyright infringement, and (7) fraud violations of the Consumer Protection Act. ^[1] After this key decision against the Australians in the USA Courts, the case was swiftly settled.

Recently, Filomenatabanao has been editing / targeting the Media sections of some key cities, such as Baguio, Puerto Princesa, Lucena, Laoag, Roxas & Tacloban, and does the following:

• Adds "Rural Airwave Media Services", "STARWaves Media", "PrimeCities Broadcasting Network", "Countryside Broadcasting Group", "Flazh FM" & "Astig FM" to the list. I googled those companies and, in return, received "bot" info from digplanet.com, wordaz.com, worldheritage.org, wiki2.org, medlibrary.org, etc. So, those companies are probably hoax to me.

• Adds non-existing stations of radio companies, notably Progressive Broadcasting Corporation (Win Radio), Cebu Broadcasting Company (Easy Rock), ConAmor Broadcasting Systems (Kiss FM) & Raven Broadcasting Corporation (Jam).

Check his contributions. Aside from undoing one or 2 of his targeted pages, I don't know what to do with his other hoaxes anymore. SUPERASTIG (message) 12:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)