Misplaced Pages

Adams v. Poling

Enric,

I disagree with what you find is "not notable" about the lawsuit in question. I've cited official government records in the matter. Please explain your issue with this.

I was curious about this case and know others are interested in it as well. Ms. Adams certainly should be considered a person in the public view. She is in fact probably more known due to her lawsuits than anything else she has accomplished.Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with the removal. I haven't found anything yet but will continue to search. In the meantime I added the information to the talk page so that others are looking they might find a reference. You've no problem with that I take it?Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that, I dunno about other editors :( I suppose that it won't be controversial to keep it there until so someone will find sources for it.

On a related matter, I'll ask that the article is unprotected, since you say that you aren't going to keep trying to add it there. See User_talk:Jayron32#unprotection_of_Stephanie_Adams --Enric Naval (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I never implied that I wasn't, I was reacting to your objections. I stopped when I failed to find a valid source according to the guidelines. PeaceFasttimes68 (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

good deletion on Stephanie Adams

Thanks. Good to see you're watching the article also. Valrith (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: meaning of "voldemort"

Deleting User page

I do not understand. Are you trying to delete the contents of my user page or are you trying to delete me? (Block my account?)

I simply saved the Odin Brotherhood article because many people had worked on it and I wanted to archive it. Remember: just because it was deleted does not mean it deserved to be.

Be that as it may, if it is inappropriate to write material on my user page, just tell me and I will erase it.

You do realize that user-page content does not show up on Misplaced Pages's Go/Search function, so what is the issue?

OK, I deleted the material from my user page which offended you. Now, if you could, remove the delete tag.

I only kept the link because the delete rubric says "do not blank" the page. If you want to blank it, go ahead.

Asd for providing personal information on the user page, no way. After making posts under my real name under another account, I had two annoying cyber-bullies stalking me on the web. I am just too good looking, I guess. --Tsmollet (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

--Tsmollet (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no need to provide personal information, just stuff like "I like nordic mothology". I just withdrawed the nom. (and, yeah, there is a lot of arcane wikipedia policies, sorry for giving you a harsh contact with them) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comment in the RfAr on Cold fusion topic bans

. Enric, there you present a very incomplete and inaccurate summary of my argument. I'd like you to reconsider. In summary, what you say is correct. The lack of those things doesn't prove that there is no ban; but there are other defects which, indeed, mean that there is no ban. A ban is generally considered to be a community affair, no individual can establish a ban -- as distinct from a block. However, I haven't been arguing that those things being missing is the problem with the ban, the lack of some of them only supports the central argument, which is that only one involved administrator decided that there was a ban, for whatever reasons, and then declared it and supported it with some blocks. By the way, two of the blocks were of IP not Rothwell or Pcarbonn. JzG sees Pcarbonn underneath every expression of POV that seems to support Cold fusion; he has a long history of involvement with the article and shouldn't be touching his admin tools in connection with it with a ten-foot pole, absent an emergency.

A topic ban may be established by anyone, actually. I could warn an editor that if they edit a certain article, they would be blocked, that their apparent goal there is disruption, etc. I've actually done this with an SPA editor with a clear COI. And then, if the topic ban were violated, an uninvolved administrator could block on that basis. Normally, though, such a warning would have more meaning and power if made by an administrator who has a block button.

The problem with JzG is that he argued for the ban, being involved, *and then concluded that it existed,* and enforced it with blocks -- and more. His obligation, being involved, would be to go to AN like any editor, and ask for a block or ban. And then a neutral administrator would make a decision. JzG is popular enough that he might get such a thing just because it's him asking, and that is how, in my opinion, newenergytimes.com got sustained in the local blacklist, and lenr-canr.org was globally blacklisted; the closing admin there disregarded the evidence against the blacklist almost entirely and seems to have accepted JzG's account uncritically.

There was no decision by a neutral administrator, this is why I say that there is no ban. I've seen this defect before; at some point, if the defect is pointed out, an admin takes responsibility for declaring the ban and handles necessaries such as logging it if broader enforcement is desired, warning the user, etc. But when there is dispute on the basis for the ban, and especially when the admin who claims there is a ban is involved and argued for the ban before it was claimed to exist, there is no ban. There is only a warning and/or a block, possibly improper.

JzG is asking ArbComm to ratify something quite dangerous: censorship of content. The only basis for a meat puppetry charge is similarity of POV. So anyone with a POV that supports Cold Fusion could then be considered banned. And this has actually happened, JzG blocked IP that was not Rothwell, based only on his imagined similarity of arguments. From other evidence, I'm quite confident it wasn't Rothwell. If JzG succeeds, this will be extended, I'm sure. Note that the only alleged linkspam and argument is Talk page comments by Rothwell. Rothwell explicitly doesn't edit articles. So preventing him from editing Talk, based on POV and alleged agenda, is pure censorship. He makes an inappropriate edit to talk, easy to take it out. Or to discuss it. Or to ignore it. He could be blocked for incivility, etc. But not for "POV pushing," since we expect that of SPAs and COI editors, that's why we ask them to limit their participation to Talk!

Thanks. So far, your whitelisting request, which I supported, is being pocket vetoed, looks like. We were told, when the lenr-canr.org delist request was being considered, "No problem: need a page, it can be whitelisted." Not if the arguments for blacklisting are swallowed and considered to apply to every page, no matter what! I'm afraid that it's political. I've been warned not to confront JzG, "pissing in the wind" is the description that was used. Well, I wasn't pissing at him, but he seems to have taken it that way. I simply disagreed with some actions, which became, as I investigated, a disagreement with a pattern of actions, but that's where it stood. I was considering the next step, which would have been, probably, involving a mediator, not AN as some suggested, and certainly not going to ArbComm, though I've been in private consultation with an arbitrator on a similar matter. I've avoided raising this issue with that arbitrator or others. So far. JzG popped the matter up, though. Well see if ArbComm takes the case or declines. Declining would be perfectly appropriate, on the face. But taking the case, well, it might be time to confront apparent admin abuse, and confirm it or reject it. --Abd (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(I hadn't seen you comment until now) sorry if my statement inaccurate, it's just a summary so I avoided going into detail. I added "5 the banning admin is involved" in order to patch it a bit.

I'm afraid I can't agree with you. I think that Jed is a SPA and a COI editor, and that he is here with the explicit and exclusive purpose of POV pushing the fuck out of the talk page.

whitelisting is stuck because of dealing with a complex issue + long comments + derailement of discussion. It will probably get stuck unanswered until it gets so old that some admin finally decides to get it out of the way one way or the other. It doesn't matter that there was spamming or not, what matters is that there is no reliability or copyvio problem with those two specific links.

One thing, you are talking about two IPs that were blocked, but who belonged to a person who was neither Pcarbonn nor Jed. I suppose you mean User_talk:69.228.220.30 and User_talk:69.228.207.247 from 31 December. The point is moot because they would have been blocked anyways for outrageous POV-pushing edits, and of course because of naked wikilawyering and playing stupid --Enric Naval (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. What are the guidelines regarding COI editors? (They are stronger than for SPAs). WP:COI suggests that COI editors not edit articles where they have a conflict of interest. What are they supposed to do? They are to make suggestions in Talk. Read the guideline, it doesn't prohibit their participation in Talk. Why do we have the restriction? It is because someone with a COI is likely to have or to express, preferentially, a POV. "POV-pushing" is offensive under two conditions: the most serious is the making of contentious edits to articles, where it becomes a burden. The less serious, and the most dangerous to try to stop, is when they present repetitive arguments in Talk, and continue beyond the point where it is clear that they are rejected by consensus. "POV-pushing edits" to Talk pages aren't, as a general matter, offensive and they do not violate guidelines. As to "playing stupid," well, it used to be that WP:AGF was a policy, and that wasn't dropped because AGF isn't important, it's because it's a tricky policy to enforce. You just violated it (though only as a general matter).

What was going on here? Basically, my objection to the ban and block of Rothman was procedural; and had it been that action alone, I probably would not have confronted it to the extent that I did. The more important issue, indeed, is the blacklisting. We'll get to that. The pocket veto of your whitelisting request is significant, and it calls into question the whole blacklist/whitelist process, which is being used to control content, not just linkspam, and which will be examined in due course. Here, though, I saw the blacklistings and realized that this was possibly improper. I was not aware at that point of the extent of JzG's involvement. I asked him to reverse them. He refused, with a barrage of arguments. I requested delisting here; this was made moot by JzG going to meta and asking for blacklisting there -- without informing any of us. However, the blacklisting of newenergytimes.com is still only local. So I became aware of the situation and started participating in the Cold fusion article. I then saw the claims of a topic ban against Rothwell, and I looked into it -- I always examined, with care, all the evidence that was presented. And I found it was defective. This wasn't mere wikilawyering. When an involved administrator takes action like that, it almost always inflames the situation and makes affected editors even more uncivil. Now, Rothwell was editing using two IPs. It appears that he has two regular places where he accesses the internet, both in Atlanta. Probably home and office. There is no evasion, no IP socking, because he always signs his edits. (However, if he evades a block by rebooting his modem or router, intentionally or unintentionally, it would be block evasion.) He edited for more than a week, with lots of involved editors reading it and commenting. Some were removing his edits because of the asserted ban. Nothing was done. The IP was not blocked. But when it was pointed out that a ban doesn't exist if it is not enforced, and when another editor went to JzG talk and questioned the ban and its basis, JzG then blocked Rothwell IP. There wasn't any serios disruption, no emergency.

Rather obviously, he was enforcing his own ban, a ban that he shouldn't have made in the first place. Please read the comments of myself -- and my evidence page -- and the comments of admin DGG, ex-admin Durova (on of the most respected Misplaced Pages editors), and arbitrator Carcharoth, one of the very best of our administrators. Now, he had simply been questioned on his Talk page, he wasn't being harassed, he hadn't been hauled before WP:AN/I, there was no dispute that could not be handled through ordinary process at a much lower level than ArbComm. He'd made a block and it was good or bad, and unless someone actually challenged it, he wasn't obligated to do anything. Asking him about it, asserting the problems with it, isn't a challenge. Yet he went to ArbComm; but did he raise the real issue? No. He made it appear that this issue was whether or not Rothwell should be banned. That could be argued either way, in fact, and we don't go to ArbComm with a problem unless lesser means have failed. Some arbitrators, initially, were sucked into giving advice about the ban, assuming that what had been said to them was true and balanced.

Why did he go to ArbComm? I could speculate, but that's all it would be. The result was as would be expected from precedent, unless something happens to change it. Request denied. Yet some are treating this as a vindication. It should be remembered that JzG made the request and it is his request that is being denied. And, because of the very real danger to all editors from the precedent that would be established had he actually been confirmed in what he asked for, I was forced to intervene with my comments, and then I was asked to provide evidence to back up what I was asserting (basically, involvement of JzG in the article -- which he had previously denied -- and actions taken in the presence of that involvement). There is much more going on than you see, Enric. JzG is not the problem. The problem is a culture and behavior that has arisen among some administrators, who become increasingly burned out fighting what they see as POV-pushing, vandalism, and disruption, until they start to take short-cuts. JzG was involved with Cold fusion, very clearly. He sees "POV-pushing." And somehow other editors are missing it, they are tolerating "fringe sources," and all that. He edits these out and they return and they stick. Well, he's an administrator, he's popular, and apparently he's gotten away before with going ahead when involved. So he just does it. He bans Rothwell. He blocks him and blacklists his web site the same day. Rothwell actually honored the block, at least he didn't edit for a month, as far as I've seen, but when JzG eventually blocked him again, he cited block evasion as one of the reasons. That was from those IPs blocked by JzG who were not Rothwell.

You are focusing on Rothwell. What you may not realize is that a pattern of incivility by administrators and established editors that continues for a long time can create -- in fact it usually creates -- incivility in response. What Rothwell would be like if he were treated like the expert that he is ("fringe"? maybe, but expert nevertheless, he knows the field and he's trusted by LENR conferences to edit papers, apparently. plus there is his book and the movie he scripted), I can't say. He has a reputation among people in the field of being abrasive; but my guess is that this could be contained. As it stands, Rothwell is a sitting duck for being banned. JzG could easily have gone to AN and obtained a ban, without the problem of his involvement, and that was pointed out by at least one arbitrator. Is Rothwell banned? That is a very complex question, which is currently moot. He's blocked. Bans only apply to editors who aren't blocked!

The big issue here is administrative intervention while involved, and it's created some difficult situations. If this matter does actually get up to ArbComm, and if JzG is intransigent, I predict, he will be desysopped. It will be a bloody mess, seriously disruptive. I've been trying to avoid this, and there are numerous steps to take before this question would appear before ArbComm again. Except that I just discovered that JzG is covered by an ArbComm sanction already, and it's possible that he's been violating it. I'm not prepared to assert that unless it's the opinion of other experienced editors that the time is ripe for it. What I'm hoping is that JzG's friends will restrain him, will point out that the course he is taking is leading to a cliff. He's not going to listen to me, I suspect.

At each stage in my approach to JzG, and in discussions on the blacklist page and on meta, his arguments shifted. He initially emphasized copyright issues, as he had in the past. That was actually libel, because there wasn't anything behind it but speculation and weak inference. One of the biggest shifts was in the argument he made before ArbComm, the claim of meat puppetry. When an action is justified by shifting arguments, in my experience, there is a hidden basis, which may be as simple as "I did it and therefore it must be right and if my first reasons turn out to be defective, there must be another reason." I've seen it again and again from administrators on and off wiki: boss fires employee, because the employee was involved in a loud argument. When it turns out that the employee had been attacked with, say, racial epithets, the reason for the firing becomes "employee was doing poor work." And when it's shown that performance reviews were good, another reason is asserted.

If JzG would simply acknowledge the error of acting when involved, the focus would move away from him. Misplaced Pages does not punish, it simply protects; at least that's the theory. But if he continues to insist that it was all okay ... I do not predict it will turn out well for him. --Abd (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(such a long post... took me a bit to know what to reply)

AGF is not a suicide pact, specially when it's the third SPA on a row wikilawyering the exact same point (notice the crucial difference between "defending the same point" and "making good-faith-straining wikilawyering on the same point")

At the end of the day, Jed was a SPA that had been disruptive in a talk page for a long period of time. I think that he was rightfully topic banned for that.

Now, you say that there are procedural problems on how JzG handled the situation (both ban and blacklisting/removal of links). I already suggested you to either raise the issue at WP:AN or make a RFC using your User:Abd/JzG page. Please consider doing it already

Finally, you are seeing ghosts here. The whitelisting is not "pocket veto"ed, it is stuck was stuck, while I was writing Dirk accepted part of the first one and is looking at the second one. I also see some issues with "Jed didn't edit for a month afthe the IP block" and other stuff, I'm not sure that you are getting the timeline right, or undertanding why dynamic IPs are blocked only for short periods of time even if the editor behind the IP should get a longer block. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* and the second whitelisting is declined because "the ISBN number is enough" and links can change.... geeez.... --Enric Naval (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) No ghosts. I flapped and waved my hands about pocket veto in a few places.... It's supposed to be easy for legitimate editors to get a whitelisting. It wasn't. Why not? I'm not going to speculate, I'd prefer to assume that there are merely some coincidences. Rothwell didn't edit for a month, as far as I've seen (Well, 29 or 30 days, substantial compliance). He might have edited from a different IP on user Talk pages, but that's hardly disruptive -- unless the user didn't want the attention. Look, JzG asserted block violation, it would be up to him to show it. I'm going to assume, though, that if JzG was asserting block violation, he'd have blocked the other IPs. I reviewed his log of blocks. I understand thoroughly about dynamic IP. Should the editor get a longer block? Perhaps. But it shouldn't be an involved admin who decides. You seem to be missing this little detail. JzG is heavily involved. Not just a couple of edits. If I'm seeing ghosts, you might also dismiss DGG and Durova? Think she's hallucinating? As to RfC, lower process hasn't been exhausted. JzG popped an issue immediately to ArbComm, he's claiming confirmation, but that's preposterous, his request was roundly rejected; he simply got a little supporting comment from some not-surprising sources (and even that is possibly misinterpreted). Jed was disruptive, yes, in a context where there was very serious and extended POV pressure from the opposite direction. What he'd have been like without that, I can't tell. Have you noticed my appealing his ban, though? That's not where I'd start! Rather, the abuse of admin tools is very, very serious, and I have admin support on that. I'm trying to get JzG to take it seriously. If he doesn't, yes, probably an RfC/U. I'd very much like to avoid that. While Misplaced Pages can be difficult to predict, I can fairly confidently predict the ultimate result: one of two options: JzG apologizes to the community, or he's desysopped. The precedents and the consequences of blowing the matter off are far too clear and strong.

Think how this looks, if this gets to the media: New Energy Times publishes an article by Pcarbonn on the Misplaced Pages article. The article isn't a hit piece on Misplaced Pages, it actually defends Misplaced Pages. Pcarbonn is, as a direct result, topic banned and, at about the same time, New Energy Times is blacklisted. In this case, there was no linkspamming at all, the blacklist addition was unilaterally done, without discussion, by JzG. (Any admin can do it, it's a protected page.) The blacklist is being used to control content. That's entirely outside its mission, but, hey, give some people some power, they can find new ways to use it as they like.

I've responded to Beetstra. We could link to whatever we want, I showed how. What would happen? I'm not sure. It would force the issue, but it might be claimed that this was "disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point." Except that the link wouldn't be disruptive, the response to the link would, possibly I'd say that editorial consensus should prevail, not the blacklist, which was only intended as a means of controlling otherwise uncontrollable linkspam.

Rothwell's alleged linkspam: have you realized that the blacklist doesn't prevent what he was doing? Since the blacklist doesn't prevent it, blacklisting is purely punitive. It simply prevents editors and editorial consensus at an article from making the decision about using a source or providing a link to a copy. In any case, this is, as well, an important issue, and it isn't only about Cold fusion. If it's done with this issue, it's being done elsewhere as well. Linkspam is quite clearly defined, and neither Rothwell's signatures -- not links but a title with no link -- nor, absolutely, NewEnergyTimes.com were not linkspammed at all. JzG managed to raise a barrage of irrelevant arguments, he's pretty good at it. And he's got, shall we say, friends, disposed to assume that he's right, without investigating or weighing the arguments.

Enric, I know what I'm talking about. At least usually! --Abd (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

30 days thing: Ah, you are right that it was was 30 days, if you only look at the blocks. According to User:Abd/JzG, JzG blocked the first IP for 1 month in 18 December 2008, and then blocked two other IPs for block evasion on 31 December believing that it was Jed . On 26 January he blocked another IP for block evasion, this time it was really Jed and the IP had been editing only since 17 January so the one month block had already expired. Now, you see, there is only one little problem.... In 31 December JzG had announced Jed's topic ban from the talk page. That means that the IP should have been blocked for ban violation and not for block evasion.... The IP would have been blocked anyways, JzG just picked a mistaken reason.....

RFC: well, then talk to JzG again if you want, but I doubt that he pays attention to your request. I think that a RFC/U is simply unavoidable if you want to pursue this matter. Not sure of how useful it will be because I think that you are mixing up valid and invalid issues.

Whitelist: well, I don't agree with the whitelisters criteria, but I don't think that they have applied that criteria because of a conspiracy to censor lenr-canr. I'm sure that they would have applied that same criteria to any other online book link on any blacklisted site. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As to the ban vs block. Basic problem: JzG was involved; as such he, by rights, could neither block nor declare a ban. I mentioned the fact that Rothwell substantially complied with the original block because block evasion was, in fact asserted. The erroneous blocks as Rothwell have double significance. Again, this is JzG, being involved with the article, using his tools to block based solely on POV. And this theme is continued in his RfAr: he asked ArbComm to confirm that Rothwell could be banned under the Pcarbonn topic ban. And tossed in Gen ato for good measure. He's involved, and when admins are involved, their judgment can be warped. Yes, probably, RfC/U, unless someone talks some sense into JzG, I'm not holding my breath waiting for him to listen to me. My obligation is simply to say it to him, not to stick his nose in it. But I'm getting indications from respected editors off-wiki that there are actually many examples like this, I've just researched the situation with Cold fusion. I may want to collect evidence more thoroughly -- off-wiki -- before filing an RfC, and then give JzG an opportunity, privately, showing him th evidence, to come to some agreement. Please understand, Enric, that before I file an RfC it will be vetted by experienced editors. Remember, I can't do it by myself, it takes two, as I recall. Take a look again at the RfAr, at those who commented on admin action when involved. Do you think I'd challenge a popular administrator like JzG without support? Now, JzG actually isn't the worst offender, among admins who cheerfully act when involved. It just happens that I stumbled across some very clear examples here. My hope is that JzG will smell the coffee, realize that he made a mistake, and simply acknowledge it and agree not to do it again. If he did that, ArbComm would not desysop him, I'd predict, so I wouldn't even go there. It's intransigence that puts him at risk. Of course, if he's right, if his actions were not violations of policy, then he'd have nothing to fear from my approach.

Now, as to the whitelist, I did not allege and do not believe that there is a "conspiracy to censor lenr-canr." So why you'd even say that is beyond me. Except that I do understand Misplaced Pages and human beings. My point is that they, the blacklist admins, shouldn't be applying those criteria! They have invented their own standards, they have usurped power from ordinary editors, all very quietly. And believing, I'm sure, that this is best for the project. I don't think that will go down well when it is challenged in a wider forum, plus, consider this: imagine a media report on the fact that PCarbonn wrote an article in New Energy Times, an article which I think described the situation here fairly accurately. The result: he was topic banned from the topic that he knows well, and New Energy Times was blacklisted by one of PCarbonn's chief critics. JzG also seemed confused, he thought that Rothwell was the publisher of PCarbonn's article, so these are all connected. --Abd (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good God, please tell me that User:Dtobias (or some other old foe of JzG) is not telling you off-wiki that you have his support to go against JzG.... I fear that you might be being convinced to pursue a sterile course of action just because it helps someone to annoy JzG

About whitelist's standards, Beetstra replied to you that "The purpose of this blacklist is as it is defined by the community here, and 'enforced' by admins, which may differ from the 'intended purpose of the blacklist'" . I'll be following this, if only to see what is this "wider forum" that you want to bring this to :) --Enric Naval (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Diff?

Was this diff the one you were intending to add? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the correct diff, I was referring to the edit summary not to the changes on the article. I have changed my message to make it clearer. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

When you recover...

would you offer an opinion over here? Thanks.__Dixie Hag2 (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams

http://en.wikipedia.org/Stephanie_Adams

Since you seem to be following this article, can you comment on the following?

From the Biography Section ;"The driver was fined, and his license was revoked by the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission" http://en.wikipedia.org/Stephanie_Adams#cite_note-12. However the cited reference says the driver's license was suspended. Nothing about him being fined or his license revoked. Thanks.Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I found a source that explains in more detail what the Commission ruled (strange, I was able to edit the article, it must be only semi-protected) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the wrong article must have been referenced.Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost, January 31, 2009

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Tanoli

Tanolis are a Pashtun tribe They claim to have migrated from a place called "Tanubal River" in Afghanistan Some Tanoli tribes still live in Gardaiz and Ghazni (both cities of Afghanistan). Tanolis came to Swat from Afghanistan after the invasions of Sultan Sabuktagin. They came to form a new state. The head of the Swat state at that time was Anwar Khan Tanoli The Tanolies (also spelt Tanauli, Tanawali) are a prominent and famous Muslim tribe residing mainly in the Amb, Hazara district of NWFP Pakistan. ... The Pashtuns (also Pushtun, Pakhtun, ethnic Afghan, or Pathan) are an ethno-linguistic group consisting mainly of eastern Iranian stock living primarily in eastern and southern Afghanistan, and the North West Frontier Province, Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Baluchistan provinces of Pakistan. ... Ghazni (Persian: غزنی , Ğaznī) is a city in eastern Afghanistan, with an estimated population of 149,998 people. ... Anwar Khan (born December 24, 1955, Karachi, Sind) is a former Pakistani cricketer who played in one Test in 1979. ...

The Yousafzai tribe came to Swat in approximately 1450 and began fighting with former Pushtun tribes of Afridi, Tanoli, Swati and Dilazak. After several bloody battles between the Tanolis and the Yousafzais Tanoli Sultan Ameer Khan was martyred while fighting with Yousafzais at Topi (near Swabi). The Tanolis were pushed to the eastern bank of river Indus. The Yousafzai or Yusufzai (also Esapzey) (Urdu: یوسف زئی ) are an Afghan tribe. ...

Tanolis migrated to the Tanawal in 1472 and defeated the Rajputs and Rajas. After gaining hold in the area, the Tanoli jirga appointed Zabardast Khan as the head of the state Tanawal. The Tanolies (also spelt Tanauli, Tanawali) are a prominent and famous Muslim tribe residing mainly in the Amb, Hazara district of NWFP Pakistan. ... Amb was a small princely state in what is today the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan. ...

Zabardast Khan Tanoli gained the title of Suba Khan from Ahmed Shah Abdali for his bravery in the historical battle against Marahatas at Paniput.

Tanolis have a vast historical background of several wars against Sikhs, Yousafzais, Durranis, Swatis and many other tribes. The majority of them reside in the former state of Amb in the Hazara division of the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan. Their main langauge is Hindko, but those living in Pashtun dominated areas also speak Pashto. Tanolis are the richest tribe of Hazara in terms of land ownership. They are the largest in population. Upper Tanawal and Lower Tanawal which cover the greater part of Hazara have been ruled by Tanolis for centuries. They have ruled the state of Amb of Hazara since the beginning of 18th century. During the late 17th century, Turks were overthrown by Swatis in areas of Upper Hazara. Tanolis, however, remained loyal to the Turks until the end of latters rule in Hazara. Tanolis were later involved in the rebellions against the Sikhs in the 19th century. They also allied with Ahmed Shah Abdali in his conquest of India. Many Khans and princes of their dynasty have gained mass popularity as heroes. Amb may refer to Amb (princely state), is a South Asian region. ... Religions Sikhism Scriptures Guru Granth Sahib Languages English, Punjabi] A Sikh (English: or ; Punjabi: , , IPA: ) is an adherent to Sikhism. ... Ahmad Shah Durrani Ahmad Shah Abdali (c. ... Khan (sometimes spelled as Xan, Han, Ke-Han) is a title. .redirects here. ... The Tanolies (also spelt Tanauli, Tanawali) are a prominent and famous Muslim tribe residing mainly in the Amb, Hazara district of NWFP Pakistan. ... The Tanolies (also spelt Tanauli, Tanawali) are a prominent and famous Muslim tribe residing mainly in the Amb, Hazara district of NWFP Pakistan. ... This article or section does not cite any references or sources. ...

Charles Allen referred to them in his book Men who made the North-West Frontier as "the extremely hostile and powerful Tanolis of the Tanawal Mountains, brave and hardy and accounted for the best swordsmen in Hazara." Charles Allen can refer to: Charles Allen (athlete) (b. ...

Pashtun Origin The most prominent theory is that the people who came to be known as "Tanolis" are identified as such due to their link with a particular geographical setting in which they found themselves (i.e. Tanawal State). The Pashtuns (also Pushtun, Pakhtun, ethnic Afghan, or Pathan) are an ethno-linguistic group consisting mainly of eastern Iranian stock living primarily in eastern and southern Afghanistan, and the North West Frontier Province, Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Baluchistan provinces of Pakistan. ...

Contemporary Tanolis are not a singular tribe but a collection of smaller groups which consists of those who call themselves Tanolis because they have resided in an area called Tanawal and those who are sub-groups, septs or clans of different Pashtun tribes representing major Afghan khels (sub tribes) in the State of Tanawal.

Many other Tanoli clans have argued the theories of their origins. For example the Hassanals have always maintained that they are actually Hassanzais from the Kala Dhaka or Black Mountains - Tur ghar and adopted the nomenclature of the Tanoli area when they left their own areas, due to tribal feuds with other clans located there. The fact that there was also a non-Hassanzai group with that name did not matter as there are many sub-tribal names which are identical but with different tribal affiliations. This also seems quite plausible given the fact that Tanolis in ;; Agror Valley, Mansehra[[and the surroundings speak Pashto as their first language if not exclusively. This is documented in the first Hazara Gazetteer written soon after the settlement of Hazara by Captain James Abbott This book also mentions the fact that the original language of the Tanolis was Pashto but some have forgotten it and now speak Hindko in areas where the majority speaks this language. spoke Pashto. Pashto also known as Pakhto, Pushto, Pukhto Pashtoe, Pashtu, Pushtu or Pushtoo) is an Iranian language spoken by Pashtuns living in Afghanistan and western Pakistan. ... It has been suggested that Hindku be merged into this article or section. ... Jim Abbott (born August 18, 1942 in Toronto, Ontario) is a Conservative member of Canadas House of Commons. ...

Related Books

AL-Afghan Tanoli written by Ghulam Nabi.

History of Tanolian written by Syed Murad Ali Shah.

Historical Background of Tanolis written by M. Ismail afi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.156.90 (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is just a copy/paste of an old version of the article... it doesn't address that reliable sources say that the pashtun origin is not a credible claim. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephanie Adamins references

Regarding your edit http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Stephanie_Adams&oldid=268560756 you stated

"the first two sources support no longer labelling herself a lesbian, added quotes to the references, the third one says nothing about her being an hetero now"

Could you please identify with a number which article refs you are refering because I am not seeing what you are claiming.

Also, the #1 and #3 references in the article are dead links. What is supposed to be done in situations like this?

Thanks--Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The refs saying that she no longer labels herself a lesbian are #7 and #8 on the link above.

The "third reference" was the third of the three references that you removed on your last edit, it read like this:

"and eventually went back to being heterosexual "

That page says nothing about her being heterosexual or homosexual, and the other ref says that she doesn't discuss it, so I didn't restore it.

When you find a dead link, you can add a {{dead link}}, or you can search the title on google to find another online copy, or you can remove the link (if it was just an online copy of a paper source), or you can go to archive.org, copy/paste the address on the text box there and click on "Take me back". That takes you to all archived copies of the page, if there is any. For example, archive.org had two copies of the first reference, from 2005 and 2007. Unfortunately, it has no copies of the other one. I have updated the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

One more item, on the same page http://www.prwebdirect.com/releases/2007/2/prweb504164.htm is used as a reference. Is this considered a reliable source via wikipedia standards? It seems to be a press release by Miss Adams herself. This article seems to be a :BLP which suggests that sources from the person in question are valid. But in general how should a source like prwebdirect be treated?Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be treated with caution :) I made an edit, the edit summary has an explanation. For hard facts you want to use independient sources. Press releases should usually be attributed with "Subject says...". --Enric Naval (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the article does reference the "press release" and the article itself references the court case document with a reference number, why remove that from the article?Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm not sure if this the $5 million lawsuit against the city. It's possible that it's a lawsuit against the city, but not one where she is asking 5 million. Feel free to re-add in a manner where it is understood that it's a lawsuit against the city, but that we don't know the details. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the reference back because the "press release" (#7) from the subject references the lawsuit as well, which is a supporting reference. That reference mentions the lawsuit against the city with respect to the taxi driver so it is fairly clear they are the same suit. However if the "$5 million" point still does not agree with you, we can also add to the article that there may be multiple suits against the city and leave the cite. I think this would muddy the article as it is fairly obvious they are one and the same suit. But if you disagree I'll add "non 5 million" suit as a separate item.Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah, let's just leave it like this until there are more news about the lawsuit, or a source that explains it clearly. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Golden Book of India

The Golden Book of India Sir Roper Lethbridge on page 328 states about Nawab Muhammad Akram Khan, Sir, K.C.S.I The Nawab Bahadur is Chief of Amb, on the right bank of the Indus, where he and his ancestors have long been independent. Belongs to a Pathan (Muhammadan) family.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.150.5 (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

replied on Talk:Pashtun tribes --Enric Naval (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Where do you go to submit an article that one wants other people to review?

Obviously I'm new here, and since you seem to be patient enough to answer. I was browsing at random and ended up Penis Envy. Yes, you should be envious :) However the article seems like a piece of junk, espcially the section on critiscms. Is there a group somewhere where I can request it to be reviewed? ThanksFasttimes68 (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You want to look at Misplaced Pages:Peer_review. However, you should be ready to put a lot of work into it before and after the review, or people will refuse to review. We are all unpaid volunteers after all :)

If you start working on improving it, you will probably see people starting to correct you as you change things. This article is probably on the watchlist of several editors familiar with the subject, it's just that thay are doing other work somewhere else. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Farm

Before creating a section within the Stephen Gaskin article about The Farm, you might want to review the article already exiting about it. Rosencomet (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help.Rosencomet (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Killed Discussion

When someone writes something like this:

I believe you (and the reference you cite) are dead wrong. Drop it. --Art Carlson (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

--and then, after I explain why it is obvious that I'm not "dead wrong", as follows:

So far, from what I can see here, there is a rationale that the electron shells allow deuterium nuclei to approach each other as closely as 100,000 nuclear diameters under ordinary physical conditions --and no closer.

and

"If there is a rationale for how a deuterium could lose its electron shell inside solid metal, then where does the electron go?" Wouldn't it join the vast numbers of loose electrons already in the metal? And wouldn't there be interactions between those many electrons and the deuteron left behind? And is it not obvious that if the deuteron's original electron was able to freely leave, then none of those other electrons would have to start orbiting the deuteron? And couldn't those electrons shield two deuterons from each other? And, because the electrons would not be orbiting the deuterons, could the deuterons now be able to approach the quantum tunnelling distance --thanks to first losing their electron shells?

--the same person deletes the discussion instead of explaining, with supporting data, a mere belief, THAT is POV at work, regardless of any collaboration about it. Except, of course, none of the people agreeing with him offered any significant argument or evidence, either. V (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the evidence I presented, remember that FUSION is as much the topic as "Cold". If it is considered reasonable to talk about nuclear repulsion as a thing to overcome, so that fusion can occur, cold or otherwise, then any other thing that MUST be overcome deserves mention, too. No double standards! And as soon as I decide how to word this on the other discussion page, I'll be saying it there. V (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Fusion is fusion, cold or otherwise. Having to specially link something like electron shells to cold fusion, when they are very plainly discussed in a GENERIC fusion article, is bureaucratic nonsense. That's like saying you need a specific reference between eating bagels and gaining weight, when there exists a generic article about eating starchy foods and gaining weight. Simple obvious logic is not Original Research, and doesn't need somebody else to have done it first. V (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

ANY sort of fusion requires nuclei to get together. And atoms under normal conditions have electron shells that prevent that. Cold fusion is EITHER special in that it can happen IN SPITE OF the existence of electron shells, or some other mechanism than high temperature is involved, that lets nuclei escape their shells. Again, simple obvious logic. Now here is some OR, though.... http://knol.google.com/k/vernon-nemitz/proposed-cf-experiment/131braj0vi27a/3 V (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's fairly easy to get nuclei for hydrogen or deuterium without "electron shells." It's not the electron shells that interfere with fusion when we have ionized deuterons, as in a plasma (a relatively cool plasma suffices) or in, say, water, where some of the hydrogen/deuterium is ionized (that's what pH indicates). It's the Coulomb barrier between the nuclei themselves, the bare nuclei repel each other. Electrons, being negatively charged, don't particularly interfere with fusion, if I'm correct, and negatively charged particles can assist fusion, that's what is. --Abd (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Abd, the next time you are here, please read the third indented paragraph at the start of this section. V (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Objectivist, I read that paragraph, and I reread it. The sharing of electrons in the "cloud" reduces a certain kind of barrier. A low-energy barrier that chemical reactions routinely overcome. The answer to the question at the end of the paragraph is "No." Deuterons without electron shells are common, sharing of electrons is common, In a deuterium molecule, D2, the electrons are shared. The nuclei don't approach each other because they each have a positive charge, and so they repel each other. As I understand the situation, the electron charge concentration close to the nuclei doesn't rise to a level such that it has significant shielding effect to allow the nuclei to approach. Remember, the electrons aren't in one position in low energy situations, they are smeared out. Now, if you can't explain your approach successfully to physics PhDs, nor to generalists like me (I sat in the Feynman lectures that formed the basis for his standard physics textbook), would you still claim that what you are saying isn't Original Research, but only simple math? --Abd (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think one misconception here would be that it takes high energy to remove the electron shells. It doesn't. That happens at low temperatures, relatively speaking, even very low temperatures. I mentioned water. As I recall, the hydrogen ion concentration in water at neutral pH is 10^-7; in acids it gets much higher than that. If the pH is 3, it's 10^-3, one thousandth of the hydrogen nuclei in the liquid are ionized, H+. Linus Pauling for Chemistry, but it was many, many years ago. --Abd (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You are mixing apples and oranges. In compounds such as deuterium molecules, shared electrons are still orbiting electrons (however fuzzily). The nuclei may be a bit closer than when two monatomic deuteriums bump into each other, but not significantly so, compared to how close they need to be to fuse. In a liquid like water, you may have loose hydrogen nuclei, but you do not have any loose electrons available to shield any deuterons from each other. The whole point about the conduction band is that electrons are not orbiting particular atoms. It is a different kind of sharing than a normal chemical bond. So they should be able to approach deuterons more closely than standard orbital distance, thus shielding two deuterons that happen to be on a collision course. One other factor, not so obvious, has to do with the low temperature. The more energy an electron has, the smaller its fuzziness. In a hot plasma electrons are much more particle-like than in solid metal. Between moving more slowly and being "bigger", electrons passing between two deuterons in metal can do it longer than they can in a hot plasma. That would help the deuterons approch more closely. And, of course, with hordes of loose/big/fuzzy electrons in the metal, and with the highest concentration of positive charge existing directly between two approaching deuterons, it logically follows that as soon as one electron sufficently exits the zone, another will enter it. V (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I see I forgot to answer your question. That paragraph was a response to this claim in the deleted discussion:

Your thing with the shells is not a question of "common knowledge and simple logic". I believe you (and the reference you cite) are dead wrong. Drop it. --Art Carlson (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The "thing with the shells" is that they pose a problem for Cold Fusion, and that IS simple. His claim about me being dead wrong is what I was refuting in that paragraph; I was attempting to explain how much easier fusion could be, if the shells weren't in the way, for deuteriums in a metal lattice. His response, to delete the discussion, was pure intellectual dishonesty, of the Religious/Authoritarianism or cowardly kind (maybe both). V (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Enric, where's the sink? I want to wash my hands. V., last chance: redact that statement immediately, edit it and put a <s> before it and a </s> after it.. The fact, if it's a fact, that you cited, has your conclusion as a possible interpretation. But there are other possible interpretations. You picked the worst. That the discussion was useless is a reasonable position, whether it's right or wrong. This has nothing to do with electron shells, and the substance has to do with Misplaced Pages process. I carry no conclusion that you are wrong, and consider Carlson's statement to be marginally uncivil. But Misplaced Pages is full of marginal incivility. However, calling people's actions cowardly and dishonest not only is not justified by what you quoted, but it's beyond the pale. Redact it. Disregard this warning at your peril. If I wanted to see you blocked, I'd put a warning on your Talk page. You aren't, technically, responsible for being warned here unless you reply, which you did, above.

Ahem, Enric. Sorry. I'll go home now. Let me know if you need any help. --Abd (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

@V, man, they just don't think that you are right, that's all.

@Abd, thanks for trying to help. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, there is a difference between denouncing an action and denouncing a person. I know what I was denouncing, and I truly think it was the correct conclusion, because if Art had a valid argument that could "put me in my place", proving that I am dead wrong about the electron-shell thing (and his choice of words does not bother me at all, except for using "believe" instead of "can prove"), then I fully expect he would have posted such an argument. Since he didn't, I get to assume he didn't have one, and thereby lost the debate, except he didn't want to admit it. Actions speak louder than words, remember? If he and like-minded editors had simply stopped posting to that section, that would have been more intellectually honest, and it would have eventually been archived of old age. Instead, to enforce his mere opinion regarding the proposed improvement, he chose the course (the History clearly shows it was he who deleted it) that makes it much more difficult for any new editors to see that debate, and his losing of that debate; the accumulation of new editors well-informed on the topic eventually should lead to the proposed improvement getting implemented, due to there being no valid reason not to do it. Thus would the existence of the discussion have a use; it would be a lie to say it was useless (well, it would not be a lie for a detractor to say, "It is useless to my vested interests..."). The deletion diminishes the possibility of Art's opinion getting overruled by people possessing valid data, and is exactly the type of action that can be expected of the board-bashing losing chess-player, or of Religious Authority (how many WARS did they start, preceding even the Hebrew invasion of the Promised Land, to shut up their competition?). Enric, I repeat, "what believe is irrelevant here; what can prove is relevant." --paraphrased from the deleted debate. V (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost, February 8, 2009

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)