User talk:Pcap

Archives

• June 2008 – Aug 2008
• Sep 2008 – Oct 2008
• Nov 2008

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at [http://www.element-speciation.net/Appl/Literature/Source/index.html?ACTION=SEARCH&Title=&TitleShort=&TitleAbbr=&ISSN=&Publisher=&Editor=&Subject=Nuclear+Science+and+Technology&Keyword=&Status=all&Order=ID this list (ordered by impact factor) IJNEST is on the second page.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

So, what are you trying to tell me? That it had an impact factor of 00.000 in 2006? I could not find it in the 2007 JCR Science Edition, and I searched by full name, abbreviation and ISSN. Also searching the 2007 JCR for "nuclear" returned 34 journals, but IJNEST wasn't among them. If there's a way to search JCR for 0 impact factor journals, pardon my ignorance. Pcap ping 19:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Impressive summary of the situation over at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cold_fusion/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:Pohta_ce-am_pohtit. Thanks. It's nice to see at least one neutral, well-informed voice. II | (t - c) 19:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Content dispute on ANI

Hello Pcap, I posted a reply to your comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Content_dispute. When you have time, I'd appreciate it if you could review what I wrote and respond. Thanks! --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RfA

I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

And butting into this section because it has "thank you" in the title, thanks for the courtesy of notifying me about the recent AfD. If I was snappy, I apologize. --Kizor 01:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal

I was under the impression that if the nominator did a good-faith withdrawal, it was closed no matter what. Maybe I am wrong though - I can't find any policies that mention this scenario. Do you know of any? — neuro^(talk) 21:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SK and WP:DPR#NAC. Two admins decided to leave it open to get more opinions so consensus can be established. Pcap ping 21:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean by your last sentence, but I have rolled back my edits, because I know of you as being a knowledgeable editor and believe you are probably in the right here. Thanks for letting me know, — neuro^(talk) 22:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

When too few !votes are cast, an AfD is usually relisted, which is what happened before you closed it. Actually, Ron Ritzman doesn't appear to be an admin, even though he's been around for a long time, so me saying "two admins" was wrong. Sorry for the confusion. Pcap ping 22:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The tags

Hi. Let me summarize the issue in clear terms, better than my edit summary could. For one, the article is obviously about the Romanian ethnicity; the statistics cited are not, they are about the citizenship. While I could stop right there, allow me to elaborate on an even more obvious point: the statistics in question refer to migrant workers, who are counted at home as citizens, and who reside in other countries for variable periods, but always non-permanently. If they were to live there permanently, they would not be included in those statistics. Hope you see that this has resulted in hundreds of thousands of people being counted twice. No, the issue is not even about "deducting from the total", but, if anything, about deducting a specific number of migrant Romanian workers (those who are ethnic Romanian) from the 19 million ethnic Romanians living at home. As if such a thing were feasible... and, even if it were, invitations to modify other numbers are invitations to original research.

The numbers are there just because, long ago, a group of rudimentary trolls pushed them in, in order to make the total number of Romanians seem gigantic. The only reason these "references" survived for so long was illustrated only recently by you: once they got their foot in the door, people need to be explained the exact problem that posed. In the absence of reliable data about even a worldwide total of ethnic Romanians, we are left with "verified sources" that verify whatever other information, none of which is actually relevant for the article. Dahn (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied on the article's talk page (see the big fat warning at the top of this page). Pcap ping 14:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

I hope you don't think it unappropriate but I have removed your comment from the WPM page. I did this out of sensitivity to TE. I have informed User:CBM about the matter, a "math admin" as requested. I don't think it needs to publicised more than that. Martin 19:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem with that. TE asked on his talk page that "math admin" be contacted. I thought this was a neutral way of doing it. Pcap ping 19:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the comment, since it seemed appropriate enough to me to be on that page. TE is an active member of that project and others in the project will have some interest in this. Paul August ☎ 19:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I very much disagree. The math project talk page is not the place to discuss issues about individual editors, and it only leads to additional tension when notices ike this are placed there. However, once something is posted there, it is virtually impossible to remove. So it's better to avoid posting off-topic things in the first place. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I respect your point of view Carl. But I have a somewhat different point of view I guess. To me the Mathematics Project is among other things a community of editors. And any issue concerning one of those editors seems to me germane to that community. But more importantly, I am generally uncomfortable with one editor removing another editor's civil comments, or anything which seems like censorship. Paul August ☎ 15:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll refrain from posting other behavioral issues on the WikiProject. The edits that started this affair were in unrelated areas (a spat about a sports-oriented school), but a number of TE's edits that were questioned on WP:AN (and reverted it seems) were related to math templates and consensus (or lack thereof) for those changed on WPM. That coupled with his request for a "math admin" made me think it was reasonable to post to WPM. The road to hell... Pcap ping 11:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have archived that thread as you suggested. Don't worry about it; I understood your reasons for posting it there. Martin 13:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Pcap: I see what you mean. The backstory with wikiprojects may not be obvious to newer editors. Many editors object when a wikiproject tries to "take over" some general aspect of the project, or when it appears to be a clique that protects its own members from scrutiny. Examples:

• Some people have complained recently about the stub sorting wikiproject because that project has developed and enforces guidelines for new stub categories
• There was once a project at Wikipedia:Esperanza that was forcibly disbanded because of perceptions that it was too much of a clique
• The "intelligent design" wikiproject developed a reputation for editing as a clique to control the content of various articles and chase away people who disagreed with them.
• I sometimes recommend to people that, before nominating a math article for deletion, they might informally ask on the math project talk page what the outcome of a deletion discussion would be. This suggestion has drawn strong criticism from some editors, despite seeming like such an obvious idea.

I hope the math project doesn't have a bad reputation, since it does a lot of good work and I don't see the same sorts of problems as with intelligent design articles. But quite a few people already complain about math articles ("too technical", "don't understand, can't read") and I'm afraid it's easy for discomfort with the topic of mathematics to turn into discomfort with editors who are associated with it. So, as a project, we need to be aware of the image we project. One important thing we should do is to participate with the broader community of editors on the community talk pages like the village pump and WP:ANI, especially for discussions that are not directly about mathematics articles or project business. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)