User talk:Coppertwig
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "User_talk:Coppertwig".

Haselzweig im Schnee (Hazel twig in snow)

☺

Those who participated in my RfA, please see Thank you for participating in my RfA. (Result: non-admin with 68/44/18.)

Welcome to my talk page. Please take off your shoes at the entrance and have a seat. Tea will be served shortly. Please keep all comments here calm and polite. Messages that are welcome here:

• politely-worded criticisms of my behaviour (but please see procedure below if you're thinking of posting criticisms of other users)
• calmly-expressed differences of opinion
• questions about how to edit Wikipedia
• just saying hello or whatever
• etc.; I like getting that "you have new messages" banner.

Re criticism of users other than myself: If you're having problems with another editor, I'll probably be happy to try to help you, but please follow this procedure.

• consider not posting any criticism of another editor. It's possible to ask for help without criticizing anybody.
• If you need to tell me something that is critical of another editor, please don't post it on this talk page, but instead post it on your own talk page or the talk page of the other user (assuming it is not inappropriate to do so); I suggest being as diplomatic as possible
• you're then welcome to put a link from this talk page to such comment
• when giving the link, please avoid posting any words of criticism on this page. For example, it's fine to say "see comment critical of user X at (link)" but please don't say things like e.g. "see comment describing disruptive behaviour of user X at (link)".
• You might also consider emailing me.

One way to leave a message here is to click on "new section" tab at the top of this page. Sometimes I reply here, sometimes on your talk page, etc.; feel free to let me know which you'd prefer.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

RFA

Good luck on your RfA -- ₮inucherian ^(Talk) - 06:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Back

This owl is in no way related to Moonriddengirl

Not that you don't know that, but it occurs to me that I haven't officially said hello since my return. :) While I'm very busy unpacking and getting affairs in order (oi! the state of my lawn!), my body clock is so out of whack that time seems to just melt away and nothing really gets accomplished. Is it really the 8th already? It doesn't help that I can't seem to stay coherent past 9:00 p.m. or asleep past about 4:00 a.m. (my time). I'm a morning person by nature, but I can't really regard 4:00 a.m. as morning. It seems much more fitting a time for the fellow to the right.

Thanks for helping out at the drawing board in my absence! While I've gradually come to understand that Wikipedia can survive just fine without me, I do always feel a bit regretful about not helping out there. Elipongo is excellent at it (and often comes up with things that don't occur to me!), but he has indicated that time constraints sometimes delay his response and so often the people there are new and a bit anxious. :)

I'm eager to get back into routine. I'm glad that I don't have to travel often. I'm absolutely not cut out for it! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back!! I'm sorry I forgot to check the drawing board very often, and didn't even think of watching over your talk page until a couple of days ago; looks like you have other helpers, though.

I have trouble with time zones, too. What I usually do is I either continue sleeping on my home time zone schedule while I travel, (which is feasible if going a few hours west and expected to be up during working hours), or else I start months ahead of time gradually shifting to the time zone of the place I'll be travelling to. Shifting to a later time is much easier than shifting to an earlier time. (This may apply more to me than to you but is a general trait of diurnal (daytime) animals such as humans. (as I remember from reading this book years ago.)) Last time after coming home after travelling east, I easily shifted back to my home time zone but forgot to re-institute discipline after a few days of letting myself sleep in later and later, and overshot and had trouble re-shifting back again. I also stayed up too late at a party shortly after coming home, not fully realizing how very late my body would consider it to be, and practically got sick.

Anyway, it's great to have you back. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Request that you intercede to stop harassment of me by your supporter

User:Redthoreau continues to place threatening and harassing messages on my user page because I have publically expressed my view regarding your nomination for admin as well as your desire to mentor User:Iantresman. He has added more to my user page within the last hour. I request that you intercede to plead that he stop. I am merely presenting my views in public forums. Sincerely, –Mattisse (Talk) 19:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting interpretation on reality ... both of the only messages I have left for you on your talk page have been in relation to your attacks on me, and practice of following me around (which you were already warned about) and attempting to "game the system". The one who needs to stop here is you Mattisse ... something you have shown you can't do after returning from your vacation.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 19:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

from your own archives

Incivility by Redthoreau [1] An/I acknowledgment that I am being put to the test on Che Guevara, from your own archives. It makes your onesided behavior all the more inexplicable. I don't expect an answer from you as there have been answer galore since. –Mattisse (Talk) 02:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My peace offer to Mattisse

Just so you know Coppertwig, I have offered peace to Mattisse and will no longer be discussing any issues regarding me and him/her. I hope you can respect this. Thanks. ---> My peace offering.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 16:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [2] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Plus, it's fun! :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Interesting and challenging questions! I had intended to do this early in my RfA, but as it turned out I didn't have time. In effect, the time I could have used for this I used instead to write this essay on NPOV, which attempts to address concerns raised in my RfA. I'll likely do the AGF Challenge, essay-question style, some time in the next few weeks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your help

Thanks for your explanation about the deletion. It's just a little strange that the deleted article was recreated. There was a tag on it saying please move it or something (can't quite remember) so as this person didn't seem notable i moved it to a place name.

But I'll ask the person who deleted it - thanks Fynci Mynci (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Signature! Psst!

After your last comment at your RfA. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! ☺ 14:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, Coppertwig.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. While it appears that you too may soon share that astringent taste of a failed RfX, please take heart and don't let it dissuade you from another attempt down the line! Also, I owe you special thanks for your detailed and thoughtful support rationales, together with your mathematical defense of me :) If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Water supply and sanitation in the Philippines

Hi Coppertwig, Thanks a lot for taking a look at the article. Your comments help me to improve this one as well as the other articles. I just changed some things and posted answers to your suggestions. Greetings! --Kerres (Talk) 13:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I translated some articles from Spanish to English, but now I write my own articles. The articles which I translated are all about water supply and sanitation in Latin American countries. So far I have written four articles on my own, which you can see on my user page. I am now beginning to write the fifth one about water supply and sanitation in Benin. Your reviews are always welcome! You can choose from the articles on Ghana, Bangladesh and the one which I just concluded, Water supply and sanitation in Uganda. Thanks a lot for your help! Kerres (Talk) 08:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well Deserved

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I am continually impressed with your unshakeable civility, kindness, objectivity, fairness, and indomitable will to remain "above the fray" regardless of how many times others snipe at you. Your decorum and resolute commitment to polite discussion, exemplifies how every Wiki editor should behave.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 22:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for adminship

I have closed your RFA as unsuccessful. Raul654 (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A bit sad to see that your RFA this time was unsuccessful. But dont worry. Take a break and come again. Wish you all the best -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 05:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I consider it Wikipedia's loss. Also I am perplexed why 68/44 is not concensus ?   ♣ Redthoreau (talk) RT 15:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

First, I like Coppertwig's mannerisms and I supported his RfA as part of the silent majority. However, consensus is not majority rules. If the vote had been 9999/44 it still would not have been consensus. 44 Wikipedians expressed some concerns and if that many people have or agree about concerns that stand up to analysis then consensus has clearly not been established.

"Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision." (emphasis added)

Wikipedia needs more people like Coppertwig, but when 40+ people express real issues then it becomes his job to carefully analyze those issues and see what options exist for changing their concerns -- ie: "to resolve or mitigate" them. Certainly he will not win over everyone, but he needs to seriously reduce the number of folks who are able to express valid concerns. Had he been able to do so in the RfA he would have eliminated those views and consensus would have occured.

If people say he should not be an admin because he has been doing "XX" then he has three choices: (1) stop doing XX, (2) keep doing XX but give up the idea of being an admin, or (3) convince objectors that XX is really a good thing.

Whatever XX is for Coppertwig there is one more thing he should keep in mind: Sometimes it is not one's actions that are the issue, sometimes it is the perception of those actions that is the real issue. There is one editor here who I often disagree with and when I first encountered him I was angry at his rudeness. Eventually I learned that he wasn't so much rude but rather was a stickler for the rules. I think if he could have been more tactful I probably would never have been angry at all. Coppertwig is the soul of tact but obviously something about his actions is causing concerns among his peers. Is it the actions or the perception of the actions? Because of this he needs to look at his own actions and decide if he made an error in his actions/judgements or if he just needs to change the manner he takes his actions (or both).

Looking at the RfA the major issue seem to be questions of judgement. He vigorously defended one editor and some folks think that was a bad decision. Was it? He supported certain subject matters and some folks think that was a bad decision. Was it? Were these items of defense/support a case of standing by his convictions or a case of not willing to retreat from a battle? And were these items truely worth his support by the standards of Wikipedia? If he can honestly look at himself and find meaningful answers then he may become an admin yet. I would be glad to support him again. -- Low Sea (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for closing my RfA and for letting me know, Raul654.

I plan to post individual thank-you messages to all participants here on my talk page, probably later today. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Redthoreau, in order to ensure that admins are people who are generally trusted by the community, conventionally RfA's do not succeed when the level of support is less than something like 80%. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! . I hope this will bring a smile back on your face - -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 05:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Why, thank you, TinuCherian. How thoughtful. Don't worry: I'm doing fine. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Coppertwig, I'd like to offer my condolences on your RfA, and also commend you for remaining very civil throughout, even in the face of (in my opinion) some very weak arguments against you. It's unfortunate we had a negative interaction; after looking through your edit history and seeing what others had to say about you, I can only assume that it was a blip, a fluke. If anything, you seem to be a little too civil at times. From what I've seen, you're definitely a future admin. Again, I'm a bit surprised you didn't succeed this time, as I didn't see many very good oppose rationales (no offense to anyone). Keep your head up, and I look forward to supporting next time around. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 21:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. On your RfA, I think it was a combination of some sort of misunderstanding or difficulty in communicating, plus my occasionally forgetting not to try to hold others to the same standards of civility that I try to maintain myself, plus a strong tendency to vote "oppose" which I had especially in the first few RfA's I participated in. It's always easier to find one thing to criticize than to find reasons to support someone. I'm glad it didn't prevent you from receiving your adminship.☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Low Sea, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Ah, perceptions.

One of the things I love about Wikipedia is that you can go to an article you've never edited before and just start editing it, and nobody will complain. They won't say "Hey, who are you? Why are you editing this article?"

However, I've learned that there are occasional situations where it is a good idea to introduce oneself, to give people some idea of why you're there, what you expect to do, whether you're there briefly or in the long-term, etc. In recent months I've done this occasionally where it seems appropriate, for example here.

Perhaps one of my problems is that too often I assume that others will assume good faith, so I see no need to explain why I'm doing something. One example is with questions. I tend to assume that if I ask a question, it will be obvious that the reason I'm asking is that I would like to receive information. However, sometimes that doesn't work.

Because you brought up the topic of perceptions, I posted an explanation at the top of my RfA thanks section, which I probably would not otherwise have included. It may seem obvious to me why I'm doing something, but that kind of explanation given ahead of time can prevent problems before they happen.

Perhaps some of the problems that arose on this RfA were due to my not explaining at the time my reasons for doing things. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I do sincerely hope that this little blip hasn't fazed you unduly. Your RfA failed for the very best of reasons in my view; you were perceived to be too trusting, and too likely to assume AGF. Neither of those are shooting offences, and I'd be very surprised if those same issues were to re-surface at your next RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Malleus. I'm feeling fine. I'm heartened by the many people who took time to participate. It was quite an experience. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Low Sea, I appreciate your support very much. I do try to stand by my convictions, but I think you're right that there may also have been some misperceptions about what I was doing. If I had explained the reasons for my actions at the time, then I might have been correctly seen as trying to collect information in order to develop my opinion so that I could contribute a more informed opinion to a discussion. I'm not sure which article you're thinking of in terms of defending subject matter, but there's often confusion between arguments about article content and arguments about a subject matter. I'm usually focussed on article content as well as preventing personal attacks and edit wars and usually say nothing about my views on the subject matter. Perhaps if I'd explained my reasons at the time I wouldn't have been seen as trying to make an argument in the domain of the subject matter. There's no point arguing about subject matter on Wikipedia since all significant points of view have to be represented anyway. Again, I really appreciate your message and will try to keep the idea of perceptions in mind: I think it will be very helpful for me. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Beret"Star

		The Che 'Beret'star
		"Hasta la Victoria Siempre" For your dilligent and "revolutionary" commitment to improving the quality of Che Guevara.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 17:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RfA.

I appreciate the time and effort that each of you has taken to participate in my RfA, which was closed as "unsuccessful. No consensus to promote" with 68 Support votes, 44 Oppose and 18 Neutral. I realize that what is usually done is to post messages to the talk pages of participants. However, that practice has also received some criticism, and even if most people prefer it, posting a large number of messages would almost certainly include a few to people who would rather not receive them, so I thought I would try something different this time and list the messages here. I believe I've included everyone who participated; please tell me if I you notice I forgot anyone. (List is in alphabetical order. If your signature has a surname separated with a space from the first name, it's probably under the surname. Otherwise probably under the first letter of the username.) ☺ Coppertwig

• Merci beaucoup to Achromatic for contributing your skeptical opinion. Danke schön.
• Thanks to Ali'i for your supportive comments in the Discussion section.
• Thanks to Antelan for pointing out the distinction between short-term and long-term abuse, giving me something to think about.
• Thanks to Apis for a detailed oppose rationale covering several topics. I plan to study and carefully reflect on the feedback I've received.
• Thanks to Arkyan for your brief but agreeable contribution.
• Thanks to Asenine for letting me know which areas to focus more attention on.
• Thanks to Ashton1983 for contributing your voice to the discussion.
• Thanks to Avi, for being the first to award me a barnstar and the first to offer to nominate me for RfA. Your faith in me has been a great source of encouragement. Thanks for the time you were able to find for me even when you were going through RfB.
• Thanks to Avruch for not spelling your username quite exactly the same as Avi, ☺ and for your astronomical support.
• Thanks to B for participating. Thanks for your work at WP:3RRN, too, where I look forward to continuing to work with you.
• Thanks to Badger Drink for seeing two sides to the issue and for clearly having thought things over carefully.
• Thanks to Baegis for participating in my RfA and for expanding on your rationale. The Che Guevara page has been a learning experience for me, both in terms of compliance with the MOS and in terms of responding to disruptive user behaviour. It's clear that I still have a lot to learn in both those areas. Thank you for reminding me to focus on continuing to learn, and for helping me learn to be more diplomatic by pointing out that a statement I made about evidence was overly demanding.
• Thanks to Barkjon. Welcome.
• Thanks to Bedford for offering your opinion and reminding me to be careful.
• Thanks to Bearian for contributing a unique perspective.
• Thanks to Bfigura for calling my contributions impressive.

• Thanks to Blackworm for your wonderful compliments. It's a pleasure working with you.
• Thanks to BozMo for contributing reflective thoughts to the RfA process.
• Gratias tibi ago, Anthony.bradbury, for your sense of perspective.
• Thanks to Brewcrewer for taking time out of your graduate school work to participate in my RfA
• Thanks to Cailil for explaining your perspective. I would be interested in further discussion and elaboration to try to figure out why we see the situation so differently.
• Thanks to Cameron for thinking things over. I'm sorry if you wanted me to elaborate something which I did not; feel free to ask me questions even now.
• Thanks to Canyouhearmenow for visiting my RfA and commenting. I like your AGF userbox.
• Thanks to User:Cardamon for providing a specific oppose rationale, and for including a compliment in it.
• Thanks to User:Casliber for your balanced contribution.
• Thanks to CharlotteWebb for your brief but much appreciated contribution to my RfA and for your incisive thoughts on your userpage: quite true! LOL! ☺
• Thanks to Cla68 for agreeing to disagree. ☺
• Thanks to Cyclonenim for a contribution from Nottinghamshire.

  Oberon, Oberon, rake away the gold,

  Rake away the red leaves, roll away the mould,

  Rake away the gold leaves, roll away the red,

  And wake Will Scarlett from his leafy forest bed.

  Alfred Noyes

• Thanks to Dan Beale-Cocks for taking the time to think things over and to look at diffs. I very much appreciate all the time everyone has put into this.
• Thanks to Dank55 for finding something different to respect me for, and for helping straighten out the issue of the use of the word "claim" in fringe articles.
• Thanks to DarkFalls for considering the evidence. I like your John Steinbeck quote.
• Thanks to Davewild for having faith in me.
• Thanks to Dihydrogen Monoxide for supporting me and for having a refreshingly scientific username.
• Thanks to Dlohcierekim for weighing the pros and cons.
• Thanks to Dorftrottel for your moral support. I will be thinking over the various points raised in this RfA.
• Thanks to Dragon695 for supporting me in spite of my faults. I don't quite get how your shortcut page works, but I do something similar: For my own navigational convenience I have User:Coppertwig/links, which I sometimes transclude at the top of my user or user talk page, and sometimes set my browser home page to get to it. In Mozilla you can have a bookmark bar which is like having more than one home page. Thanks again for visiting my RfA; I found it very encouraging to get those last few support votes right near the end.
• Thanks to east718 for giving me a specific homework assignment for my next RfA.
• Thanks to Editorofthewiki for asking a good question. I very much appreciate your support rationale submitted in the final hours.
• Thanks to EJF for taking time to participate in my RfA in spite of being busy studying for exams.
• Thanks to Epbr123 for your enigmatic support and for your Style and prosechecklist, which looks as if it may come in handy.
• Thanks to faithless for being more levelheaded on my RfA than I was on yours.
• Thanks to FeloniousMonk for contributing your perspective to the discussion, always with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart.
• Thanks to Filll for the AGF Challenge: very interesting and challenging questions. I regret not having had the time to do it during the RfA, and hope to do it some time within the next few weeks.

Twig in spring (almond blossoms)

• Thanks to Firsfron of Ronchester for providing your valuable opinion, and for giving me a laugh by calling your own username "absolutely ridiculous". Now, that's a Firs. ☺
• Thanks to Folantin for valuing neutrality highly.
• Thanks to GlassCobra for offering to nominate me. I'm sorry I couldn't include all the people who offered. Thanks for saying I remain civil in any situation. Sometimes it's easy and sometimes it is not. I do lose my temper at times, even if it might not necessarily be evident on-wiki.
• Thanks to Guettarda for making observations, thinking things over and contributing to the discussion with the interests of Wikipedia at heart.
• Thanks to Heimstern; I'm delighted to have your trust in me.
• Thanks to Hiberniantears for giving your perspective on the Iantresman case. Perhaps with further discussion at User talk:Raul654/Civil POV pushing the different perspectives can be reconciled. It gives me food for thought, in any case.
• Thanks to Icewedge for calling my talk page "dotted with Thank You's": I think the number of them will go up a bit when I post this! ☺
• Thanks to InDeBiz1 for your brief but sincere contribution.
• Thanks to iridescent for contributing your perspective from your own unique set of experiences.
• Thanks to Jacina for taking the time and trouble to participate.
• Thanks to Jakew, one of the editors I most highly respect even while we frequently disagree, for an extraordinarily positive support statement. I look forward to continuing collaboration and intellectually challenging discussion with you.
• Thanks to Jayjg. Your support means a lot to me. Thank you again for helping me raise my standards of civility by setting a good example for me.
• Thanks to jbmurray for observing and assessing.
• Thanks to jc37 for some excellent questions. Consensus is a complex, sensitive and fundamental process; I found that question quite challenging and enjoyed reflecting while answering it. I appreciate the reminder not to become over-confident.
• Thanks to J.delanoy. This is my message of thanks to you for participating in my RfA. (Feel free to make fun of me for stating what is as obvious as what you state on your userpage.) I certainly hope that promotion of myself to adminship would not result in a sudden increase of vandalism or trollism in the project and see no reason why it would, but thank you for contributing one of many opinions to the important process of RfA.
• Thanks to Jehochman for providing information leading to me being given the Iantresman sockpuppet evidence which I was then able to post on Iantresman's user page, and thanks for participating in my RfA.

• Thanks to Jim62sch for your contribution to the discussion, and for a very interesting userpage. I enjoyed trying to understand the quote about the Sibyl; my Greek and Latin isn't as advanced as yours. LOL re Flying spaghetti monster.
• Thanks to JodyB for taking the time to contribute your thoughts in detail.
• Thanks to EdJohnston for helping me from the beginning. It's been a pleasure to work with you on 3RR.
• Thanks to jonny-mt for contributing your insight.
• Thanks to JoshuaZ for underscoring NPOV. It's been good to focus attention on one policy for a while, reflecting on and clarifying some of the distinctions it involves; I'll continue to pay particular attention to this policy.
• Thanks to Jossi for valuing good judgement, the core policies and careful selection of admin candidates.
• Thanks to Jpmonroe for your willingness to trust me with the tools.
• Thanks to Keeper now. / You told what you think's best for / Wikipedia.
• Thanks to KillerChihuahua for bringing up the interesting topic of the NPOV policy. Because of thoughts that occurred to me in response to comments on this topic by you and others and because I know that I've misunderstood parts of this policy at times in the past, I've written an essay on NPOV, in the process of which my understanding has deepened; I will continue to think about it.
• Thanks to KojiDude for your temporary, underworldly, heterodox contribution.
• Thanks to Kralizec! !. Thanks for noticing some of my AN/I work. Re a message on your user page, on the contrary: I assure you, I am neither bored nor lost. Some of your userboxes are quite interesting. I'm not sure that I've personally run into a conflict between immediatism and eventualism on Wikipedia often enough to get a feel for which I support: some linear combination, probably. May His Hoodly Appendage touch you daily.
• Thanks to Krimpet for a more than usually unusual userpage – and for your support.
• Thanks to Lankiveil for trusting me.

Twigs in twilight

• Thanks to Lar for reading and considering various comments and for providing your own contribution.
• Thanks to Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles for noting my contributions to various Wikipedian discussions. Evidently I oppose exclusionist anti-pumpkin wording as much as you. ☺
• Thanks to LessHeard vanU. I appreciated very much your support rationale about the scientific method, the fundamental idea of which you seem to understand very well.
• Thanks to Low Sea for supporting my RfA as part of the silent majority and for your very helpful, and very perceptive, comment about perceptions.
• Thanks to Lradrama for taking the time from a busy life full of many interests such as drama to share your insights on my RfA.
• Thanks to Majoreditor for looking in. Gratias tibi ago.
• Thanks to Malinaccier for having seen me around. (waves hello) ☺
• Thanks to Malleus Fatuorum for your contribution. I agree that there need to be limits to what behaviour is tolerated from users.
• Thanks to MastCell for your kind words. I was particularly curious as to what position you would take in this discussion, and I was very pleased to receive your Weak Oppose parts of which sound almost like a Support. Thank you also for replying to Realist2 about my unblock request essay. I have great respect for you and look forward to continuing to work with you even if we often have to "agree to disagree".☺
• Thanks to a certain user I've been asked not to name, for participating in my RfA. I still leave open my offer to provide help if you ask for it, for those types of help I'm reasonably able to provide, and I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia and that your Wikipedian experience from now on will be relatively problem-free.
• Thanks to Adam McCormick for appreciating the work I put into Che Guevara.
• Thanks to Merkin's mum for noticing my efforts at calming disputes, and for helping at AN/I.
• Thanks to Merzul for your comments, and especially for giving me your perspective from the opposite side of the WP:ATT debate.
• Thanks to J Milburn for again re-emphasizing an area a number of editors feel I have room for improvement in.
• Thanks to Mojska for emphasizing the importance to the community of the various issues raised in the RfA.
• Thanks to Moonriddengirl for your advice; but more especially thanks for your support; but even more than that thanks for being a friend.

"I've tried the new moon tilted in the air

Above a hazy tree and farmhouse cluster

As you might try a jewel in your hair.

Robert Frost. ^[1]

☺

• Thanks to MrPrada for taking the time and effort to review 1000 of my contributions as well as the whole RfA.
• Thanks to MSJapan for giving me feedback on my handling of an issue that arose on the WP:3RRN noticeboard.
• Thanks to Naerii for your ebullient preemptive support.☺
• Thanks to TheNautilus for trusting me to stop and think before taking action. I try to be careful.
• Thanks to Jitse Niesen for coming to my RfA and supporting me and for reminding me that there are all those math articles out there waiting for me to work on one of these days.
• Thanks to Natalya who apparently likes dancing as much as I do and who has refreshingly cool userpage images, for contributing your thoughts.
• Thanks to NiciVampireHeart for adding your voice to those concerned about my understanding of NPOV. I will continue to reflect on my understanding of this core policy.
• Thanks to Orangemarlin for contributing your opinion to the discussion and for your willingness to elaborate on that opinion and provide a diff.
• Thanks to Pete.Hurd for contributing your opinion. I see you've worked on Evolutionarily stable strategy; an interesting topic: maybe I'll edit that page one of these days.
• Thanks to Philosopher for your contribution and for an interesting quote about time travel on your userpage.
• Thanks to Phoenix-wiki for contributing a comment about the difference between sense and nonsense, and getting me thinking about clarifying more often whether we're talking about a debate between Wikipedians or a debate among the reliable sources.
• Thanks to Pigman for carefully weighing the pros and cons.
• Thanks to Prashanthns for recognizing that, as WP:NPOV says, "All editors and all sources have biases"
• Thanks to QuackGuru for bringing the chiropractic article to my attention again. I look forward to participating there and hope that we will reach common understandings about both content and behavioural issues.

Twigs against the sky. (European birch)

• Thanks to Queerbubbles for visiting my RfA, and for seeing two sides like some of the other Neutral participants. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I like the name "Queerbubbles": it reminds me of blowing bubbles with soapy solution and a wand. Once I made a soap bubble with the topology of a Möbius strip. I hadn't been sure it would be possible. Now, that would be a queer bubble, wouldn't it?
• Thanks to Raul654 for closing my RfA. I appreciate your time and effort and the opportunity to receive a definitive result in a timely manner.
• Thanks to Raymond arritt for contributing your insight to my RfA and giving me a perspective which I will be thinking over carefully.

O wad some power the giftie gie us

To see oursel's as others see us (Robert Burns)

• Thanks to Razorflame for making clear which policies I still need to demonstrate an understanding of.
• Thanks to Realist2 for reconsidering in response to feedback.
• Thanks to Redthoreau for your kind words. I look forward to continuing to edit alongside you.
• Thanks to Relata refero for your careful review.
• Thanks to Rudget for being your unique self, for being here and for writing such a tremendously positive nomination that I felt that after reading that, I could survive any number of oppose votes without feeling discouraged. Thanks for looking after me by replying to selected comments, and especially for thinking of my feelings.
• Thanks to RyRy5 for having a cut-and-pastable signature, for liking my answers, for trusting me and especially for wishing me well.
• Thanks to Pat (Scarian, my friend) for encouraging me to "RfA soon". It's been an exhilarating experience.
• Thanks to Siva1979 for support from a fellow inclusionist. ☺
• Thanks to Skinwalker for clarifying two distinct areas in which I still need to demonstrate to the community a sufficiently developed level of understanding.
• Thanks to SmithBlue for a long though infrequent association and for remembering and summarizing your impressions of me.
• Thanks to Spencer for using your intuition.
• Thanks to Squeakbox for contributing your perspective and for defending my display of an unblocking advice essay.
• Thanks to Stifle for thinking I was already an admin.
• Thanks to Stormtracker94 for expressing the regretfulness of your oppose. Don't worry: I feel fine, but I appreciate your consideration for my feelings.
• Thanks to Swatjester for your good wishes.
• Thanks to SWik78 for your praise. (It's easy to talk about SWik78 because he considerately tells people on his userpage which pronoun to use.) ☺
• Thanks to Al Tally. I am "majorly" pleased to have you participate in my RfA.
• Thanks to Tiggerjay for envisioning the future and contributing your thoughts to this discussion.
• Thanks to Tim Smith. Good to see you again.
• Thanks to Tinkleheimer for having the faith to assume that Assuming Good Faith is good. ☺
• Thanks to Tiptoety for trusting me with the tools; for giving me a laugh again with the "What Wikipedia has become" image on your userpage, and for having a link to global account creation – I didn't know that had been implemented yet!
• Thanks to Tool2Die4 for clearly expressing what's problematic for you on this wiki.
• Thanks to Trusilver for impressive contributions to Wikipedia including starting the League of Copyeditors project and making an effort to participate regularly in RfA's, including mine.
• Thanks to KleenupKrew for admitting that not quite everything deserves to be deleted.

• Thanks to SheffieldSteel for thinking things over carefully, for looking at my contribs, for finding some nice things to say about me – and for adding to my collection of nicknames.
• Thanks to Vassyana. Remembering you from the WP:NOR policy debates, I was extremely pleased to receive your Strong Support.
• Thanks to Walton One for your perceptive comments in the discussion section. I agree that the interaction of editors of differing viewpoints can be an important ingredient in the crafting of a NPOV article, and I share your puzzlement as to where the idea of me being "anti-science" came from.
• Thanks to weburiedoursecretsinthegarden for your thoughtful support.
• Thanks to Wisdom89 for contributing your opinion. Maybe I'll edit vasodilator one of these days and run into you there.
• Thanks to Wizardman for including a contribution to my RfA among your 40,000+ edits.
• Thanks to Yaf for calling me "quiet and reflective". I like that.
• Thanks to Yilloslime for a contribution to my RfA from a fellow scientist.
• Thanks to Zginder for bringing up an interesting point re non-self-noms and cabalism. I think your point has considerable validity; nevertheless, there are probably also advantages on the other side; it would be interesting to participate in a community discussion on the issue. I'm sorry I didn't have time to participate in your RfA. I was incredibly busy all week, with matters arising from the RfA added to the usual responsibilities on- and off-wiki, in spite of giving RL short shrift this week.

Sincerely, Coppertwig (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Robert Frost (1969) The Poetry of Robert Frost. New York, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. ISBN0-03-049126-6 p. 245.

A brief note..

Hi, Coppertwig. While I did not find myself able to support your RfA this time around, I do commend you for taking the time to write a brief note of thanks to everyone who participated in the process, rather than pasting a generic "thank you" template-like message on each talk page. To me, that shows a good amount of maturity and/or sincerity, which I can certainly appreciate. Please keep me informed of any future RfA attempts, as I will be more than happy to reconsider you in the future. Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, InDeBiz. It took a lot of time to write all those messages, but much less I'm sure than the time the participants put into the discussion, and it was satisfying to do. It made me realize how very much of peoples' time in total goes into one RfA. I feel privileged to have been the subject of such an extensive discussion and pleased with the amount of support I got: although obviously I was hoping for more or I wouldn't have started the process.

Unfortunately, per WP:CANVASS I don't think I'll be able to inform you of the date of any future RfA. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

InDeBiz1 (and everyone else), you can always just add Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Coppertwig 2 to your watchlist. :) faithless (^speak) 01:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, hadn't considered that yet... I've done so and look forward to it, whenever it may arise! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of us do try to personalize most of the messages we send. What makes Coppertwig so smart is that by posting it this way, I am certain it took fewer hours than page-by-page messaging :) -- Avi (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Avi. If that's the case, I don't know how people ever find the time to do it the other way!

And thanks for that watchlist idea, faithless.☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for this, I will stay back in Wikipedia for an extra year! If and when I am bored and disillusioned, I will remember that there was an editor who did this! Touched indeed, Coppertwig. You are a good person. Cheers. Prashanthns (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

How kind of you to say this, Prashanthns! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you to. It just goes to show what the community missed out on. Rudget (Help?) 15:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Rudget. Thanks for your support. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: RfA

I think you misread my actions completely. First off, removing the !vote and placing it on the talk page was to avoid drama, not create more (and to be honest find it rather offensive to be accused of trying to create drama). Instead of leaving it on the RfA mainpage to be read and ultimatly allowing others to continue to post would only further the drama that was not meant to be there in the first place, and if I would have placed a link from the RfA mainpage to the talk page, it would have read pretty much like “To continue in the drama fest, click here” and "drama" would have only continued in the talk page. Understand that my intention, whether the candidate does not mind at all was that simply !voting for the heck of it, and stating that you may remove it is completely un-expectable. And after asking if she would remove it, I did so myself. I hoped that it would limit any more !votes like that, which can in fact hurt newer or less confident candidates. RfA is not a place to play around, or at least not in the way that user went about it. Also, understand I would never remove a !vote from an RfA, or any content for that matter, and always move it to the talk page. Tiptoety ^talk 04:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't make my message clearer. I certainly didn't intend to accuse you of trying to cause wikidrama, Tiptoety. I never thought you were trying to cause wikidrama; and you may be right – the total amount of wikidrama that did actually occur could be less than what would have occurred if you'd done as I (with hindsight) suggested. I suspect that once the vote was indented or struck out, few additional comments would have been added to it – especially if someone had posted a comment asking people to stop commenting. We'll never know unless we visit an alternate universe.

I still think it's better not to move a vote from a page without leaving a note in its place stating that the vote has been moved. However, perhaps from now on it will immediately occur to me to look at the talk page if I see that a vote seems to no longer be present on the project page, so perhaps I can be convinced that that practice is just fine. It would depend partly on how many users, as unfamiliar with the practice as I was, would not think of looking at the talk page.

Perhaps it was a mistake for me to have posted that comment on your talk page. It only added to the wikidrama and needlessly criticized you for something that's in the past anyway and therefore can't be changed. It would have been better for me to wait until I saw a general discussion somewhere about how to move votes, and put my opinion in there. I'm really very sorry for the misunderstanding, for criticizing unnecessarily and for any hard feelings caused. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I agree with you that the fact that a candidate does not mind a joke vote does not make the joke vote acceptable. I think it's fine to discourage joke votes and to have them discounted. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please understand that the comments you made earlier on my talk were made in good faith too, and for that reason there is really no apology needed though it is greatly appreciated. I say we move on, and put this all behind us. So yes, I accept your apology. Cheers :) Tiptoety ^talk 14:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hello!

Thank you for the smiles, Coppertwig!Kitty53 (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Cites

Lurking, I noticed a request for citation tools. See Wikipedia:CITE#Tools, I use WPCite and find the Google Scholar page useful for making refs. DigitalC (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

my RfA - Ta!

Gwen gleans, wending keen by the wikirindle.

Thanks for almost :P showing up in time to support my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: Your red smiley thingy is cute. You might want to know, in Firefox running on FreeBSD it's tiny, about the height of this: t , while in Firefox on a MacBook pro running OS X it's BIG, overlapping some into the line above. Fonts! Gwen Gale (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations again on your RfA. Thanks for the lovely image again, and thanks for the font info.

I post the smileys various sizes and colours, for variety; as I see them displayed they often push the line down, forcing a bigger interline spacing. I try not to make them so big they're disruptive, especially on busy pages. Here's one of my bigger ones: ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Aqueous Service

Hi Coppertwig. Thanks a lot for the Barnstar of Aqueous Service and the very original text which you withdrew from your brain!! Kerres (Talk) 08:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks – I had fun writing that! You deserve it. I hope to find time in the next few days to look over another of your articles. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

CSD edits

I have noticed a lot of CSD templates recently edited by you with no actual content change, but with the edit summary (Contributors to the new versions of CSD templates of March 24 were Moonriddengirl, Happy-melon, Coppertwig and Od Mishehu.) It sounds like you are claiming ownership of the templates, and if not, why did you make the 'edits'?  Asenine  19:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I guess I didn't word that very well!! What it's supposed to mean is that we took the old templates and edited them, producing new versions. The earlier editors should also be credited. The earlier editors appear in the edit summaries in the page history. I added those null edits because the contributors to the development of the new versions from the older ones didn't appear in the page history; their edits were to files such as Template:db-a7/new (which will need to be deleted, or their page histories merged; I'm planning to do something about that but haven't had time yet) the contents of which were copied and pasted to the regular templates. I was trying to make the templates conform to GFDL. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Pointer to thanks

Those who participanted in my RfA, please see Thank you for participating in my RfA. I'm going to try to keep this section at the bottom of my talk page, so please add other sections above this one, but don't worry about it too much – you can add sections below if you want and I or someone else can move this section back to the bottom again later. I expect to be on Wikibreak from approximately now until approximately May 20. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

current versions

The acceptance you see here (supp. 75 / opp. 120). regards Rauenstein (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I replied at de:Benutzer Diskussion:Rauenstein. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How to be a Sichter

Hi CT. Thanks for correcting my statement in the thread. I'm responding here rather than there because I don't want to edit such a huge thread, and I'm afraid adding section breaks might be controversial. Your understanding is that:

1. all admins on de.wiki are Sichters,
2. anyone who has at least 200 edits can *apply* to be a Sichter,
3. anyone who has 500 edits after some date in May (plus a few other things) is automatically a Sichter
4. Sichter ability can be taken away for misuse?

I still believe your translation project (of the poll) is worthwhile. I'd care more about the comments that revealed some actual usage of the system, and (in my copious spare time) I was going to go through and look for such comments. It did appear that there has been at least one sighting edit war!

I think Rollback might be Zurücksetzen, but I'm not sure. I don't know if they have rollbackers there. Have you noticed? This picture makes zurücksetzen look like our 'undo.' EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, EdJohnston! Thanks for your comment.

"Jeder angemeldete Benutzer wird automatisch nach 60 Tagen, 500 Artikel-Bearbeitungen (Edits, vorläufig noch gezählt ab einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt im Mai 2008, später gezählt ab Benutzerregistrierung), Existenz einer Benutzerseite, bestätigter eMail-Adresse und leerem Sperrlog zum „Sichter“. Stimmberechtigte Benutzer (d. h. bereits ab 200 Artikel-Bearbeitungen) können auch hier das Recht auf Sichtung beantragen." (from de:Hilfe:Gesichtete und geprüfte Versionen#Wer kann sichten?)

Apparently Stimmberechtig means 200 edits and 2 months. Other than that I think what you're saying is correct. I don't know about taking away Sichter status but I suppose that's how it works.

Sighting edit war? Does that mean that a sighted edit can be marked as unsighted again? (unlike new page patrol.)

I seem to have posted way too many comments at the flagged revisions discussion -- so my actual proposal is hidden in there somewhere. I'll try to hold back and not post anything else except more translation. I posted in German at de:Benutzer Diskussion:Rauenstein and de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Umfragen/Akzeptanz des neuen Verfahrens «Gesichtete und geprüfte Versionen»#übersetzen auf Englisch.

Thanks for saying the translation is worthwhile. It's just as easy (or difficult) for me to translate as to just read the discussion: I have to look up many words anyway. I'm curious about what they say, especially the opposes. Besides, it's fun using my German.

By the way, I'm trying to keep up with the discussion at Talk:Chiropractic, plus some other things such as this Flagged Revisions stuff, so I might not have time for 3RR. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,

1. not all admins on de are Sichter
2. sighted (gesichtete) articles can be marked as unsighted (ungesichtet)
3. sighting edit war exists, look at this [3] ("entfernte eine Markierung von" means: has unsighted the article)

If you have further questions, feel free to ask... —YourEyesOnly (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Cite button

Hi Coppertwig,

I totally forgot about your comment on my talk page regarding the cite button. Do you require any more help or is it resolved? Cheers. CorticoSpinal (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Addendum: I know there is a lot to review on the talk page at Chiropractic, but I personally feel a defining thread of the dysfunction at that article is this one. Any comments, criticisms, insights, suggestions would be appreciated. Feel free to pass on the link to neutral editors who might be able to help us resolve this particular dispute. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, CorticoSpinal! ☺ Thanks for your message. Don't worry about the cite button: DigitalC replied to me above at User talk:Coppertwig#Cites, so I think I'm all set. I'm afraid I'm a couple of days behind on Chiropractic but hope to catch up in the next day or two; I'll look at that thread you're mentioning. Coppertwig (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If the chiropractic article is declared fringe, we will edit accordingly. See WP:PARITY. QuackGuru 02:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the comment you left at my talk page has come into surprisingly quick fruition. Interesting timing too, just as the landmark RfC:chiropractic=fringe is getting underway. Looks like an attempt to muzzle me (and my arguments re: civil POV push Ernst and chiropractic is fringe). Hopefully the admins will see through this ploy and consider the context and timing of such an ANI. Any comments would be appreciated. Cheers. CorticoSpinal (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

RfC - Chiropractic

Hi Coppertwig. I noticed that you recently made a comment about WP:FRINGE on Talk:Chiropractic. There is a new RfC on whether it (the entire article) is Fringe. Perhaps you want to move your comment to there? Talk:Chiropractic#Challenge. Cheers, DigitalC (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw that shortly after I'd posted my comment. Probably too late to move it now. Thanks for the idea, though. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the discussion about whether chiropractic is fringe would not change article content. If we decided chiropractic is all fringe or decided chiropractic is not fringe at all, what would be the difference in article content. Problably nothing. We write according to what the sources tell us. Not whether we think it is fringe or not. QuackGuru 18:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion about fringe seems to be irrelevant. Some editors want to include or exclude source based on fringe. Some editors will even say Ernst, a leading researcher, is fringe. However, we have WP:MEDRS guidelines. For example, take a look at the cost-benefit section. I wrote the entire cost-benefit section in accordance with WP:MEDRS. The section relies highly on reviews and not primary sources. But to fill in the blanks where reviews were not available on a specific topic (example: health care costs (PMID 15477432) is covered using a primary source), I used some primary studies to balance out the section. QuackGuru 18:40, 3 June 2008 (