User talk:Imersion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Imersion, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Jarich 03:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus based assessment (CBA)[edit]

G'day Imersion,

Thankyou for your great work on the Consensus based assessment (CBA) article. It's always great to have more people sharing their knowledge. I've tagged this article for cleanup because it's not yet written as a standard Wikipedia article. For example you have headings that are just appearing as normal text and you're missing key information such as *when*, *where* and *how* Peter Legree and Joseph Psotka made their proposal.

I would be delighted to work with you to make this article even better.

Jarich 03:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok- I have updated the stuff as best I could.
Any additional changes and help would be appreciated!
Imersion 15:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Imersion you've done a great job! The article reads much better and also looks a lot more like a wiki article. I've removed the tag and also provided a little extra clean-up. Obviously you know a lot more about this topic than I do, so if you could check that the wiki links I've added are correct that would be great. In particular if you can provide links to any extra pages which would help a non-psychology, non-statistician reader understand the basics, that would be fantastic. You also use both the phrases "Q factor analysis" and "Q technique analysis" are these the same thing? If so, could you pick whichever phrase is most correct and change all references to use that one?
Thanks again for your hard work! Jarich 13:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure! Thanks for the help - -The links to rubrics and facotr analysis are right on. I addded a small section on Q factor analysis to that main entry.

Best Joe Imersion 01:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Confabulation (neural networks)[edit]

I have nominated Confabulation (neural networks), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confabulation (neural networks). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  Chzz  ►  01:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Illusory superiority[edit]

Hi, I've had to revert your recent edit to Illusory superiority because it was a piece of original research (which isn't allowed on Wikipedia) and was unencyclopedic in tone. If you can find published sources that make the critical points about the driving research, then you're welcome to summarise them and edit them in. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


Hi Imersion. Thank you for your contribution to Self-awareness that you made a couple of days ago. As you can see, I have copy-edited the section a bit. However, the section has only one reference, and that is an incomplete one. Could you make that reference more complete (the name of the article or book, in which journal it was published)? And also add references to the other stuff you wrote? Thank you! Lova Falk talk 16:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


I've just adjusted the redirect page you created here. If you want further info on creating redirect pages, please have a look through Wikipedia:Redirect.
Happy editing. LordVetinari (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ideal wealth distribution[edit]

The article Ideal wealth distribution has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is not an encyclopedic article, but an opinion piece.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. OpenFuture (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ideal wealth distribution[edit]

The page was deleted after a weeks discussion time. The decision was unanimous, nobody protested, not even you. Stop recreating the page. If you continue to recreate it you are going to end up blocked, which is hardly useful. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This is silly. Of course I protested. You and I even had a discussion about my protests, in which I found your comments uninformed and even abusive. That discussion has conveniently disappeared with the article; and I tried to reinstate the article to retrieve the discussion, to no avail. I am not particularly wedded to the article, (although I thought the paper by Ariely was excellent and well worth reporting in Wikpedia) but I find the whole deletion process disturbing (especially for novices) and well worth becoming more expert about now. Imersion (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted after an open and clearly announced vote. The vote was unanimous, your participation would not have changed the outcome. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Still, you lied. I protested and you know it. Where is the abusive discussion you wrote about the article?Imersion (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The deletion discussion was held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideal wealth distribution. If you wish, you may request that the closing admin, Joe Decker, to review his closure of the discussion or you may request a review of the deletion discussion by following the procedures at Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion in question is not on the deletion page but on the talk / discussion page for he deleted article. I mistakenly thought that that is where the deletion discussion takes place.Imersion (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that you posted to the AfD talk page, but that was several days after the AfD was closed. I also see that there was some discussion of the article on the now deleted talk page of the article. However, you will still need to follow the instructions in my previous message if you wish to have the AfD result reviewed. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Re your message: The AfD process can be rather daunting. I see that you were never notified of the start of the AfD process. You should have been, though the lack of notification is generally not a grounds for overturning the deletion discussion. As for your questions, the article has remained deleted, so there is nothing further to delete. While the article could be restored into your user space so that you can continue to work on the article, you would need to ask the closing admin, Joe Decker, to restore it for you. I think it would be best if I not restore it since I am assisting you in the questions you have about the process. Your memory is correct that it was PAR who was participating in the discussion on the talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Review Process[edit]

Re your message: The offer to send you a copy by email is not uncommon, but I can understand your reluctance to give an email address and that is fine. Nobody should fault you for that. As for your question about how to appeal his decision, that would be the Deletion Review process. The instructions on how to list something for review is towards the top of the page, see the "What is this page for?" and "Instructions" sections. If you need further assistance with it, please feel free to leave me another note. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Re your message: Okay, you copy and paste the following:

|page=Ideal wealth distribution
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideal wealth distribution
|reason=Your reason why the discussion should be overturned here.
}} ~~~~

Into this link. When you click that link, you will see a bit of instructions at the top of the normal edit field. You copy and paste the above after where it says "BELOW THIS LINE". Ignore the detailed instructions there, just copy and paste the above. When I recommend is that you copy and paste exactly what is above, even that filler text about your reasoning. Once you save the page, you will find the stuff you copied has been transformed into different ouput, that's fine. Then you go to the appropriate section, find where it inserted all of the necessary code, find the filler text and then edit it like normal with your reasoning. Trust me, that will be easier and less complicated. You can ask for a temporary restoration of the talk page within your reasoning, but the whole deletion process will be reviewed, not just the talk page.

Finally, you go Joe Decker's talk page and at the very bottom, copy the following to notify him of the discussion:

{{subst:DRVNote|Ideal wealth distribution}} ~~~~

If you get stuck, leave me another note. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Re your message: You're welcome. I am glad that the situation was resolved as you had hoped it would. I know that the whole thing was drawn out, confusing, and painful. There are still parts of Wikipedia that confuse me after all of these years. I don't venture in Deletion Review very often, so I had to read the instructions myself a couple of times. As for your question, I just try to be helpful around here. I haven't done any formal advocate work on Wikipedia. My work here tends to be more towards the background kind of tasks instead of the one-on-one discussion type of tasks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Thanks for the kitten, too. I will take good care of her or him. =)

Lessons Learned[edit]

Having gone through his very uncomfortable experience of having a page deleted Ideal wealth distribution I thought I had better write down some lessons learned before I forget them and make them all over again.

First, when you create a new article, put down that it is a Stub by adding a stub template from the list here. There are a huge number of Stubs. Even better is the under construction template

Probably also a good idea to remind any would - be admins looking for things to delete that the page is new by putting in a non - delete request until a specific date (say 6 months from the start) to provide time for the article to mature. There is no script for this, although this would be a good idea for someone.

The article was deleted because the unanimous admins (see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ideal wealth distribution‎ thought that the phrase itself was WP:NPOV. Their ignorance of what a value judgment is can be attributable to the colloquial (hip, flip) discussion of NPOV that pervade wikipedia. Without a serious discussion of what constitutes NPOV anyone can say anything they please, and they do.

One really good thing to come of this was to find another user user:DGG who has an appropriate attitude to NPOV. Loosely paraphrased, I would say he says: "Nothing is so bad that it can't be improved." and "The only article that is NPOV is one that has only one POV."

Nothing is so well understood that there is only one POV:  take matter, as an example: is it particle of wave or  probability distribution? 

When an admin does propose deletion, engage him in a discussion of his reasons. Don't try to convert him; just get him to postpone his attempt. Point out: 1. No one else has tried to delete the article. 2. The article is new and has many threads and other POVs that have not been xplored. 3. You are busy and o not have time to make all the needed changes immediately. 4. One week for the AfD (srticle for deletion) process is much too little.

If he persists, then you may as well give up, but you can ask him gently if he has real expertise in this area.

If you do want to challenge the deletion, then follow the instructions by Gogo Dodo above. The Deletion review page itself is a real mess and full of warnings by overzealous admins who are so arrogant that they think no one should dare challenge them. Ignore the warnings and go ahead.

Things to Do[edit]

  • improve the value judgment article.
  • discuss the place of opinions in an encyclopedia of facts. The truth is there are only opinons (OK that is an extreme bordering on solipsism but it gets close to the truth: Facts are hard to come by.

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for help[edit]

I am an unregistered editor, and I attempted to edit where I see you have edited recently, but 'Nasnema' just now apparently vandalised the page, and reverted my edits, falsely claiming that I did not cite my sources; I did cite my sources.

I am a religious person who believes in God, and I do not wish to cause unnecessary pain or trouble for 'Nasnema,' but also, I must defend the truth and what is right: It would appear that this user is valdalising this page, & falsely claiming that I am --which makes a good case that I should not join Wikipedia. Could you please look into it? Thank you71.101.40.113 (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Cardiac dysrhythmia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SUDS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


Disambiguation link notification for March 13[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Benedict Arnold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Cadwalader (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The smoking Gun[edit]

I had an 800LB Gorilla sleeping on my bookshelf, in Dr. Gerhard Reichling Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen, Teil 1, Bonn 1995 pages 19-20. I checked the details for religion of the German expellees, Jews are included in the population figures!! Reichling does not break out Jews as a group, they are included with "others" I will add the details to the article.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Reichling cited three sources for his figures on religion of Eastern Germans that I have requested to be pulled from storage at the New York Public Library--Woogie10w (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The final 70 or so of the Hahn's book covers the statistics. On Wikipedia I only post what can be verified in a reliable source. I never offer readers my own analysis of the statistical data. As long as you are in the Library of Congess take a look at 1- Die deutschen Vertreibungsverluste. Bevölkerungsbilanzen für die deutschen Vertreibungsgebiete 1939/50. Herausgeber: Statistisches Bundesamt - Wiesbaden. - Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1958 and 2- a b German Federal Archive (1989). Spiegel, Silke. ed. Vertreibung und Vertreibungsverbrechen 1945-1948. Bericht des Bundesarchivs vom 28. Mai 1974. Archivalien und ausgewählte Erlebnisberichte.. Bonn: Kulturstiftung der deutschen Vertriebenen. p. 46. ISBN 3-88557-067-X. --Woogie10w (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Schimitzek, Stanisław. "Vertreibungsverluste?" Westdeutsche Zahlenspiele I read and own the English version Truth or conjecture?: German civilian war losses in the East- interesting book from Poland in 1966. He pointed out the flaws in the 1958 study but was disregarded in the west--Woogie10w (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Re The Germans in SE Europe(Hungary, Romania & yugoslavia) I reccomend the Schieder reports. I have read only the narratives but not the supporting documents & eyewitness accounts. In any case a good friend of mine has a German Romanian background, I cannot understand their Swabian dialect, it is Greek to me.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Your research sounds interesting, tell me more. --Woogie10w (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you have access to the Library of Congress you can read the journal: Dzieje Najnowsze -1994 This short article is very important for analysis of the 1958 study and the Search Service figures. Rűdiger Overmans-Personelle Verluste der deutschen Bevölkerung durch Flucht und Vertreibung.this paper was a presentation at an academic conference in Warsaw Poland in 1994),

Also the three articles by Ingo Haar for the background on the of the Schieder reports and 1958 study

  • Ursprünge, Arten und Folgen des Konstrukts „Bevölkerung“ vor, im und nach dem „Dritten Reich“ Zur Geschichte der deutschen Bevölkerungswissensch: Ingo Haar Die deutschen ›Vertreibungsverluste‹ – Forschungsstand, Kontexte und Probleme, in Ursprünge, Arten und Folgen des Konstrukts „Bevölkerung“ vor, im und nach dem „Dritten Reich“ Springer 2009: ISBN 9783531161525
  • Herausforderung Bevölkerung : zu Entwicklungen des modernen Denkens über die Bevölkerung vor, im und nach dem Dritten Reich Ingo Haar, Bevölkerungsbilanzen“ und „Vertreibungsverluste. Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der deutschen Opferangaben aus Flucht und Vertreibung Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften 2007 ISBN 9783531155562
  • Ingo Haar, Die Deutschen „Vertreibungsverluste –Zur Entstehung der „Dokumentation der Vertreibung - Tel Aviver Jahrbuch, 2007, Tel Aviv : Universität Tel Aviv, Fakultät für Geisteswissenschaften, Forschungszentrum für Geschichte ; Gerlingen [Germany] : Bleicher Verlag

Also: Pistohlkors, Gert : Informationen zur Klärung der Schicksale von Flüchtlingen aus den. Vertreibungsgebieten östlich von Oder und Neiße. Published in Schulze, Rainer , Flüchtlinge und Vertriebene in der westdeutschen Nachkriegsgeschichte : Bilanzierung der Forschung und Perspektiven für die künftige Forschungsarbeit Hildesheim : A. Lax, 1987

Also I do have copies of the 13 sheets that summarize the Search service figures, can E mail them to you if you want to see them, Contact me by Wiki Mail.

This you tube clip is just for fun (BTW I root for Obama) [1]--Woogie10w (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

End-of-the-year meetups[edit]


You're invited to the end-of-the-year meetup at Busboys and Poets on Sunday, December 14 at 6 PM. There is Wi-Fi, so bring your computer if you want!

You are also invited to our WikiSalon on Thursday, December 18 at 7 PM.

Hope to see you at our upcoming events!


James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 02:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Museum hacks and museum edits[edit]

Hello there!

Upcoming events:

  • February 6–8: The third annual ArtBytes Hackathon at the Walters Art Museum! This year Wikimedia DC is partnering with the Walters for a hack-a-thon at the intersection of art and technology, and I would like to see Wikimedia well represented.
  • February 11: The monthly WikiSalon, same place as usual. RSVP on Meetup or just show up!
  • February 15: Wiki Loves Small Museums in Ocean City. Mary Mark Ockerbloom, with support from Wikimedia DC, will be leading a workshop at the Small Museum Association Conference on how they can contribute to Wikipedia. Tons of representatives from GLAM institutions will be present, and we are looking for volunteers. If you would like to help out, check out "Information for Volunteers".

I am also pleased to announce events for Wikimedia DC Black History Month with Howard University and NPR. Details on those events soon.

If you have any questions or have any requests, please email me at

See you there! – James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 03:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC celebrates Black History Month, and more![edit]

Hello again!

Not even a week ago I sent out a message talking about upcoming events in DC. Guess what? There are more events coming up in February.

First, as a reminder, there is a WikiSalon on February 11 (RSVP here or just show up) and Wiki Loves Small Museums at the Small Museum Association Conference on February 15 (more information here).

Now, I am very pleased to announce:

There is going to be a lot going on, and I hope you can come to some of the events!

If you have any questions or need any special accommodations, please let me know.


James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 18:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Editing for Women's History in March[edit]


I am very excited to announce this month’s events, focused on Women’s History Month:

  • Sunday, March 8: Women in the Arts 2015 Edit-a-thon – 10 AM to 4 PM
    Women in the Arts and ArtAndFeminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. Free coffee and lunch served!
    More informationRSVP on Meetup
  • Wednesday, March 11: March WikiSalon – 7 PM to 9 PM
    An evening gathering with free-flowing conversation and free pizza.
    More informationRSVP on Meetup (or just show up!)
  • Friday, March 13: NIH Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon – 9 AM to 4 PM
    In honor of Women’s History Month, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is organizing and hosting an edit-a-thon to improve coverage of women in science in Wikipedia. Free coffee and lunch served!
    More informationRSVP on Meetup
  • Saturday, March 21: Women in STEM Edit-a-Thon at DCPL – 12 PM
    Celebrate Women's History Month by building, editing, and expanding articles about women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields during DC Public Library's first full-day edit-a-thon.
    More informationRSVP on Meetup
  • Friday, March 27: She Blinded Me with Science, Part III – 10 AM to 4 PM
    Smithsonian Institution Archives Groundbreaking Women in Science Wikipedia Edit-a-thon. Free lunch courtesy of Wikimedia DC!
    More informationRSVP on Meetup
  • Saturday, March 28: March Dinner Meetup – 6 PM
    Dinner and drinks with your fellow Wikipedians!
    More informationRSVP on Meetup

Hope you can make it to an event! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please let me know.


James Hare

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. 02:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming attractions in DC[edit]


Here are some upcoming DC meetups in April and May:

  • Tuesday, April 14: National Archives Hackathon on Wikipedia Space with American University – 2:30-5pm
    See the latest work on the Wikipedia Space exhibit in the new NARA Innovation Hub and brainstorm on new ideas for a public exhibit about Wikipedia
  • Friday, April 17: Women in Tech Edit-a-thon with Tech LadyMafia – 5-9pm
    Team up with Tech LadyMafia to improve Wikipedia content on women in the history of technology.
  • Saturday, April 25: April Dinner Meetup – 6 PM
    Dinner and drinks with your fellow Wikipedians!
  • Friday, May 1: International Labour Day Edit-a-Thon – 1:30 PM to 4:30 PM
    An edit-a-thon at the University of Maryland

Hope to see you at these events! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please let me know.


James Hare

To remove yourself from this mailing list, remove your name from this list. 22:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)