User talk:Cazort

Re: Your comments on Remigius Jerry Kanagarajah

Find sources saying what you're saying (I can't find them, honestly!) and you will have grounds to include this material in the article. But this is not an argument for deletion--there are sources for this article, and fairly mainstream ones. Yes, I don't think anyone takes him terribly seriously...but that's not what notability is about. Cazort (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Cazort, a cursory glance at the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffna_Kingdom will verify that the Jaffna kingdom came to an end in 1619. A glance at Mr Kanagarajah's personal website http://www.jaffnaroyalfamily.org/royalfamily.php will reveal that he laid claimed to the title in 2003. Further, an examination of the poorly constructed and sourced genealogical chart he provides on the same website will reveal that he cannot uncontroversially trace father-son descent from any of the Jaffna kings (note that the chart is devoid of dates). Furthermore, Sri Lanka is currently in a state of civil war, with Tamil separatists fighting the Sri Lankan government for independence - this individual is attempting to restore the monarchy in Jaffna (this came up in an episode of Undercover Princes). Understandably, many find this to be in very poor taste, especially in a time of heightened national tention. In addition, the article's very title is controversial as it appears to affirm his dubious claim to the title "prince".

Honestly take the time to read the wiki entry on the Jaffna kingdom, his genealogical charts, and the claims he makes on his personal website. I'm astounded that you weren't able to find sources I mention above especially when most of the links appear on Mr Kanagarajah's wiki entry. Regarding the charts, Rohan Titus (an Australian lawyer and genealogist, who is also a fellow of the Royal Asiatic Society) corresponded with Mr Kanagarajah in the early days and assisted him with piecing toegether a complete chart, but dismissed his claims when the evidence didn't support his claims - see http://ceylontamils.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=9 for an informal discussion on this, you could also try contacting Mr Titus through the website for more information.

I hope that helps

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.164.148 (talk)

I assume you're referring to my input into the deletion discussion. I personally don't really care whether this guy is legit or not. What interests me is that (a) he made a claim, and (b) that claim got media attention and is thus verifiable. This is why I argued to keep that page. I have no objection to people rewriting the page to make him look like a fraud, especially if there are reliable sources to back this up. But working on that page would be low on my list of priorities! Cazort (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, too true. I wouldn't mind it remaining if it wasn't a vehicle for self-promotion (which at times borders on being culturally insensitive), see the latest edit to the page. Someone has edited it, styling Mr Kanagarajah as "H.R.H." and replacing neutral phrases like "claims to be" to "is" and other such nonsense. But I'm just gonna let the admins take care of it, as you alluded to - life beckons!

Censorship

"I think wikipedia has a number users who attempt to censor wikipedia by excluding certain topics or attempting to tone them down. For example, I have noticed that extremely sexually explicit topics tend to be deleted or suggested for deletion more readily than other topics which have stronger ground for deletion. I also notice that the pages of many corporations and large organizations seem to have lots of people watching them and attempting to sanitize the pages by removing material that is negative towards the institution. I also feel that people shy away from words like "criticisms", "limitations", "drawbacks", "controversies" etc, making claims of NPOV when in reality they are taking highly controversial or negative material and making it seem bland or neutral, when it is not. I have little tolerance for any of these types of censorship and will gladly revert edits."

Hi! Just stumbled upon your profile. What you write above is exactly what I experienced recently. Look at what happened here on linguistics from the discussion on the talk page. --Supriya (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Dear Cazort, here I am Rudraksha108 from the problem with Satchidananda getting blanked out and redirected by proponents of the other spelling Satcitananda. I agree about having one page with all variations! But as it turns out, there are people who hover and lurk on their chosen topics as followers of the other schools which use these concepts. It is really not appropriate to troll for converts or followers in the West using these concepts to redirect to other sites on Wikipedia that espouse Hare Krishna or Auroville work. Thank you, --Rudraksha108 (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Tree of Heaven

Great job with Tree of Heaven. It seems to me that Wikipedia's tree articles are pretty good with botanical information, but often lacking in ecological information. --Allen 18:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto to the above; one request, please note that wikipedia pages should be internally consistent in spelling; as an Asian species, it is in International English, not with American English spellings - thanks, MPF 17:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

sure...what spelling correction(s) did you have in mind? I notice you haven't made any changes yet. Cazort 23:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Things like odor to odour. I can do it tomorrow if you like - MPF 23:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Evergreen

Hi Cazort - nice additions, can you dig out some references? I've also removed the note "The most cold-tolerant broadleaf evergreen tree is the American Holly", as there are several Asian broadleaf evergreen species as hardy, and it is also open to interpretation of what defines a "tree" with some hardier shrubs that can make small trees. - MPF 17:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

ok...I added some references but I need to learn how to reference them by number...I'll figure it out eventually...the "advantages of being evergreen" article should link with the "reference needed" that you pointed out. The other two articles also deal with this issue and with some of the other things I wrote. Cazort 23:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; referencing by number isn't too important, if it's easier, just add it in brackets like this (Author 1996) at the relevant point (like in a printed journal) - MPF 23:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Relating Hypocricy to fundamental attribution error

Can you please explain how they relate? I read the article and it appears to me that the fundamental attribution error is based more on a mistake people make when determing why behaviour is done rather than hypocricy where the very same behaviour is justified by the one who does it and then villified when the very same thing is done to them.

The two do not appear to actually relate to one another at all.

Example:

• Fred robs a persons house
  • FAE: "Fred must be a bad person" instead of "Fred grew up in a bad neighbourhood and doesn't know better"
• Someone then robs freds house
  • Hypocrisy: Fred claims how wrong it is for people to break into peoples houses even though he did it himself

Enigmatical 23:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose this is my opinion but I think it is pretty clear: FAE is connected to hypocrisy as follows: the basic problem of FAE is that one tends to associate attributes in other individuals to the notion of their "self"--i.e. it reflects that they are a "bad person"...whereas when you judge yourself, you tend to focus more on your environment, i.e, you had good reasons to do what you did. Thus, you're more likely to hold others towards absolute morality, whereas you are more likely to hold yourself towards relative moral standards. The inconsistency in moral standards that you hold others to, vs. yourself, leads to the hypocrisy. Cazort 00:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahhhh, thank you :) Now I can see the connection. Its the fact that they use different methods of judgement which makes them hypocritical. Very nicely explained. If it could be added to the article in some way I think it will provide some nice clarity for people to understand as well. Enigmatical 04:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Obie culture reorganization

I like your recent reorganization, but it created at least one problem: the bike derby has nothing to do with sexuality or nudity. I'm not sure where best to put it. I feel that another section is needed that could cover the derby, the big parade, local foods fest, and other miscellaneous cultural events. What do you think?—WAvegetarian•(talk) 16:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Hmm...yeah...that sounds like a good idea...why not go ahead? Cazort 03:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

re: The Versatility Of C**t - removed section (censored out of politeness)

Good call, its basically just an email joke WookMuff 05:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The page still needs a lot of cleanup. Not sure exactly what the page should say, but a lot of the stuff in there is pretty inappropriate for an encyclopedia article...just a lot of senseless rambling. Cazort 18:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to Bagel

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Cazort! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule petitiononline\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 19:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

on Bagel

Oh, I understand the humour as well (but this is an encylopedia) and your addition seamed like original research rather then encylopedic.

But if you want to add it, please find a real academic or news reference, the link you provided seems clear that it was done as a joke by some people. And if I'm not mistaken, anyone can go onto this website to create a survey. Therefore, this website does not fit a acceptable citing source for Wikipedia's standards. (as neither do personal blogs).

Either way a whole section for something quite obvious doesn't seem right. Really the term everything bagel, just includes all the "traditional" toppings (which doesn't really mean anything because as you point out, they are all over the world), but the traditional ones in the US and Canada anyways. (And probably before all the different vareirties came out)

And just to point out, even today, if you go to a "traditional" bagel place in the USA or Canada, you are likely not to find blueberry, choclate, etc... anyways.

If you want to further clarify this article, be bold, but please cite your sources. Oh, and please see Wikipedia:Citing sources for how do a ref tag, this is important for you to know as you didn't do it correctly.

I have nothing against what you wrote, I have wondered this since childhood as well, actually the restraunt near my home sold a "New York bagel", which was an "everything" bagel, and I always wonderd what they had to do with New York.....

This is probably the reason "everything" bagel is in quotes, so readers can take away the irony. But if you want it in, please source it. Giving something its own section for something which seems trival without citing it doesn't seam right. I would prefer a simple sentence along the lines of........An everything bagel includes xyz, even though today, numerous different toppings types are used on the bagel, and it does not include them. Epson291 23:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

COTA bus

I asked for assistance at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Am I being too strict here?. --NE2 08:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks; I didn't see the whole conversation the first time! Cazort 15:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on maths ratings

You have been lighting up my watchlist with your edits, way to go! Are you a member of WP:WPM? If not, I highly encourage you to join. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that your work has not gone unnoticed. Cheers--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 21:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Almost forgot... you might want to read up on general policy on importance ratings Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0/Importance here. I think most of your edits have been in line with policy, but if you are going to make a habit of this it would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the general policy.Cheers again :) --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 21:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a very useful page. Sometimes I just don't know where to look for things like this...wikipedia tends to be very easy to navigate, but the community of wikipedia editors, and the maze of guidelines and standards is often far-from-transparent to me! Cazort 21:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me or one of the math admins User:Oleg Alexandrov User:CBM and User:Jitse Niesen for help. You can also post on WT:WPM there are always helpful people hanging out there. The same is true for just about any wikiproject. If you have any particular interests I can point you in the right direction for the relevant project. Cheers#3 --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 21:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello from me too. I've been uprating some of your adjustments, because importance/priority ratings are assessed in context, and "interest to a general audience" is not a major issue for more specialized articles. Geometry guy 09:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, is it not of some importance? This seems to be what separates Wikipedia from, say, PlanetMath. I understand that not everything is going to be accessible to the layman but I think that we ought to work to keep wikipedia articles on math subjects oriented more towards a general audience (at least a general audience of people with some math knowledge) than would be the case for a specialized math reference. Cazort 13:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Evergreen article references

Hi. This post is about your references on the article Evergreen (diff).

Recently, someone reformated your references, but placed all of them at the end of the section (diff).

Do you remember what are the specific paragraphs or facts they were supposed to support, and whether they may satisfy this new request for citation? (diff)

Thanks. 75.63.18.106 10:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit to predation

Re: your edit to the mobbing behavior section, it would probably be better to add this material to the mobbing behavior article. Predation uses summary style, the point being to summarize the material in the daughter article. Adding new material that isn't covered in mobbing behavior is not the best way to go about things, as it desynchronizes the articles, leaving the summary containing information that isn't even in the main article. When making future edits to sections such as this, consider adding the material to the daughter article instead of or as well as adding it to the broader article. Richard001 23:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I did not see this separate article. You are totally right; the material I added would belong on the other page, if it's not already there. Cazort 13:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Brewery categories

Categories are the easiest things to make mistakes on - yet can have big implications for the way that Wiki is structured. I made mistakes as well when I first started editing. Yet I think it's important that new editors do look at and question the categories because it's so easy for long standing editors to miss the obvious because they've been staring at it for months and got used to it! Keep up the editing! Regards SilkTork 23:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that I made a mistake with the categorization of breweries, and I think it is proper to revert any changes of that sort that I made. However, I do not think that my categorization of non-alcoholic beer is a mistake. I have restored those edits and I look forward to hearing why you objected to them. Cazort 23:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I responded on my talk page, but I assume you've missed this as you haven't responded, yet are continuing to populate the cat under discussion. Here is the response I wrote:

"It was not my intention to be condescending. It was my intention to be friendly, helpful and supportive, and to share with you my own experiences of dealing with categories. I felt my comments were encouraging you to continue editing categories, and to get involved with the beer project. Though I agree and accept that I didn't give you a full explanation for my editing. It is something that happens now and again, and I am guilty as others for that. It usually boils down to the whole nature of how we all do our Wiki editing. We log on at odd moments - perhaps to do some reading, perhaps to do some editing, or perhaps to response to messages or check on some activity. While on Wiki something may catch our eye which we'll then edit. Depending on time and other circumstances we may then give a full explanation of what we have done or we may not. Certainly where there may be some controversy it is always advised to give an explanation, and if one hasn't the time for that, then leave the editing for another moment. We are, however, all human and frail and few of us edit Wiki in a perfect manner that is going to please everyone. Clashes do sometimes occur - mostly through misunderstandings. In my message to you I should have given a full explanation, and I apologise to you that I did not. So, what was my thinking for emptying Category:Non-alcoholic beer? Well, we have two categories for styles and types of beer, and we have a category for non-alcoholic beverages. So there are already three categories into which individual beers can be placed appropriately. Categories work best when they are neither too broad nor too narrow. We could have a category for each style of beer, but that would be too narrow. This article addresses that issue: Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Also, for individual products the consensus is that they go into the article for the company that makes them, unless they are significant in themselves. Certainly, while both the product and the company are stubs it would make sense to keep them together. This [1] deals with that topic. We have been down this road several times and had a long discussion on it, from which this essay emerged: Wikipedia:Notability (breweries). As I said to you earlier - it's always good to have fresh views on something. Nothing I have said here should suggest that your way is wrong and my way is right - merely to give you an explanation for why I proceeded the way I did. Regards SilkTork 09:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC) "

Does this response seem reasonable to you? Would you like to talk about it now? Regards again, SilkTork 09:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've heard nothing from you for a while. I have today listed the category for discussion. [2] SilkTork 15:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been without internet for a while. This is fine! Cazort 22:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Systems

Thanks for joining the WikiProject Systems. I hope together we can make a difference. If there are things you want to discuss or initiate, please let me know or leave a message at the WikiProject Systems talk page. I've been running the WikiProject Systems with lot's of support for half a year now, and things are still moving. The Announcements archive gives just a little impression of the things we have been doing. This doesn't tell that we are not that active. Things are moving with a stop and go... and in a way (after four years now) I am also still learning about the opportunities and limitations of wikis.

I always try to find similarities. And I have noticed that you have made some contributions in the field of the systems ecology and on the mathematical model article. I made some contributions here too (I wrote the (short) Dutch article on mathematical modelling)..., although I'm not an expert in those fields (and in English neither). I hope we can join forces here, or maybe elsewhere. Good luck. - Mdd 23:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I was excited to find the community...I often feel a bit isolated within academia when it comes to my interests in systems theory, and I'm eager to find others who share an interest to it. Some things I have been thinking about are wikipedia pages in areas of philosophy, including holism and reductionism (you'll see I made some edits to those and related pages lately). I am also interested in the connections between bayesian statistics and systems theory. Right now I'm starting a Ph.D. program in statistics at Yale, where the department has a lot of research interests represented in bayesian statistics, information theory, and networks, so I'm hoping to ultimately do something related to these things with my research. Cazort 23:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Lately, I have learned that there is interest in systems theory from a lot of angles... and it is fascinating to try to combine these perspectives into the Wikipedia representation of systems theory and all it's surroundings. I guess with the WikiProject Systems we are not much of a community yet, beeing started only half a year ago. I guess this will take some more time. In the meantime I'm glad that people like you are willing to support this. Good luck. - Mdd 22:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Gamma Zee

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Gamma Zee, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Toohool (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Mean squared error

You write:

Omitting technical terminology does not necessarily make a page more accessible.

1. As I stated in the edit comment "can't we keep the introduction simple and work up to mathematical formality later in the article?". This does not mean "omitting technical terminology"—it means starting with what the reader could reasonably understand and gradually easing him or her into the domain-specific formalisms. This is consistent with the Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible.
2. I believe I preserved all of your additions, including the part about "difference between the estimator and the true value of the parameter" which is a duplication of the formal definition in the "Definition and basic properties" section, and so seemed redundant.
3. You are very comfortable in introducing technical terms without definition, directly or indirectly. If I achieve anything here, I'd like to appeal to your sense that information should be democratic. I'd urge you to read the comments in Talk:Mean squared error, notably the one that states "This article is pretty useless to anyone but a math major.".

I agree that what I had put there was not ideal, but what is there now is still not ideal; it introduces other problems.

Could you provide specifics here?

I also think that your comment about why MSE is used (differentiability) is a bit problematic. The real justification for MSE is its natural link to the mean, like the characteristic property mentioned on the variance page. But how to explain that in common english? I'm not sure but I think it could be done.

It's been twenty years, but here's the argument for MSE as a general measure of how an estimator performs (as I understand it):

• The measure that one would likely try first if one had to solve this problem from scratch is the mean absolute error (MAE): it's intuitive and computationally just about as easy as you can get (subtract, change signs, and add).
• If one uses the MAE in constructing a method to find estimates of parameters so that the error is minimized, one of the first issues one runs into is that the derivative of $|X_{i}-{\overline {X}}|$ at $X_{i}={\overline {X}}$ is undefined.
• If one were to cast about for the "next best alternative", MSE looks fairly attractive, even though you have to do more work computationally (subtract, multiply, and add) and it weighs outliers more heavily than one would naturally expect (one source of the criticisms you cited).

About the "criticism", however, the Berger book I cited as a source for that paragraph very heavily criticizes the use of MSE. I thought it was pretty clear from context that that source refers to the entire paragraph...it seems clumsy to put a citation to the same source at the end of every sentence. Do you have a suggestion as to how to better handle this?

I urge you to read WP:WEASEL, especially the "this page in a nutshell" statement and the section on passive voice.

Couldn't we put the explanations that you added somewhere else in the article? This way we could keep the definition itself concise.

Yes, good point. I had a vague notion that I'd get to it some day or that it might inspire someone else to elaborate in the meantime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielPenfield (talk • contribs) 16:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Mean squared error, redux

You write:

Also, I want to note that I think the rest of the article (besides the definition) is actually much more inaccessible than the definition!

Once again, could you provide specifics here?

All of the sections except the "Definition and basic properties" were included based on specific requests from the talk page.

I think it's dangerous to say that the reasons it is used are the reasons it should be used.

You are the first one to conflate the two (what is versus what ought to be), to my knowledge. Before you came along, nobody had issued any normative statements regarding MSE whatsoever. I think sections on its historical development as well as advantages and disadvantages would serve the article well, with Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible kept foremost in mind. It's your propensity to introduce terms without definition (e.g., true value, loss function) and fondness for redundancy that I take issue with. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Joe Comfort (New Haven)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Joe Comfort (New Haven), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Joe Comfort (New Haven). RJC ^Talk 21:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

re: Sexual repression

Sexual repression was not an article. It was a redirect to Sexual morality. Per debate at WP:RFD, the community was in agreement that sexual repression and sexual morality were not synonymous and so the redirect was deleted. I would agree the topic is encyclopedic. As for creating the article, you may wish to ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. It would fall in the domain of that project so its members may be willing to assist you. Let me know if you have any other questions. -- JLaTondre 14:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthrosexual

Since you are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, i would appreciate it if you could voice your opinion on the article Anthrosexual, which is currently up for deletion.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Systems/Member userbox

Hi, I updated the WikiProject Systems/Member userbox -- Mdd (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Orgasm in Childbirth - proposal for change

Hey there - How about changing the orgasm information to a Sensuality in Childbirth section? This seems to better capture the intent of the references I've viewed. It's also more inclusive - while not all women experience orgasm during sex (when they expect they could), it seems even more alienating to focus on orgasm during labor. Instead, focusing on sensuality allows the discussion of relaxation, comfort with the birth process, use of clitoral/nipple stimulation for enjoyment and pain relief during labor. It can include the fact that some women report having orgasms (rather than focusing on proving that it happens), but this isn't the pinacle of sensuality and needn't be treated as such. This modification would make it appropriate for the content to be it's own section or a subsection in the Pain Management section. Thanks. Lcwilsie (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Play party (BDSM) (2nd nomination)

Since you are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, i would appreciate it if you could voice your opinion on the article Play party (BDSM), which is currently up for deletion. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

bird length

I have responded to your comments on the article length. I hope you'll discuss before making sweeping changes, as there are good reasons why the article is as long as it is. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have replied. I also want to explain something, because it is kind where I am coming from. I don't want you to think I am protecting my article. That would violate WP:OWN, and besides, I was only one of many people that contributed. I am, however, protective of the article's FA status. Because I'm going to name first grey hair "The process of getting bird to FA." Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirect from 88-ET to Lucy Tuning

Please undo the redirect from 88-ET to Lucy Tuning. Lucy Tuning is a patented/proprietary tuning system, and the page is currently being used as somewhat of a vanity page for its "inventor". 88-ET is a more general concept. Lucy Tuning should perhaps be a subsection on the 88-ET page. CKL —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Demurrage

Hi, I added WHO and FACT tags to a portion of Demurrage (currency) which you contributed. If you could, you'll probably be the best person to address the shortcomings there. Thanks, --99.163.50.12 (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out! I agree that the way the article is worded is extremely problematic and needs citations. I'm about to leave for vacation so I will not be able to edit this thoroughly for another few weeks. The ideas I referenced all come from Thomas Greco's book referenced at the bottom of the page, but I think in-line citations are needed. Also, Greco's book cites a number of earlier works, including other authors who advocate for demurrage fees. Also, a book by the heterodox economist Arthur Dahlberg takes a completely independent angle on this same issue. Cazort (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:LaketranCommuterBus.jpg

Image:LaketranCommuterBus.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Laketran MCI.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Laketran MCI.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you

The article you created, Eric_Schechter maybe deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric_Schechter.

The faster your respond, the better chance the article you created can be saved. This is because deletion debates only stay open for a few days, and the first comments are usually the most important.

There are several tools and other editors who can help you keep the page from being deleted forever:

1. You can list the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. If you need help listing your page, add a comment on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
2. You can request a mentor to help explain to you all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted, here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond on the deletion page.
   
3. When try to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you.
   Here is a list of your own acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
   Acronyms in deletion debates are sometimes incorrectly used, or ignore rules or exceptions.
4. You can merge the article into a larger or better established article on the same topic.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Capitalism vs Free market

Hi Cazort,

I noticed this request, which kind of explains your edits on the Seasteading article. Being open about ones biases ("full disclosure") on Wikipedia is something everyone should do (I should update my user page, the Dutch version does explain my biases at length). What really puzzles me is the difference you make between free markets and capitalism which to me is exactly the same thing. Could you elaborate on that? Joepnl (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I also wonder how merging Seasteading and Seasteading Institute having "little content" and "few sources" is related to I tend to argue against merging articles when I see a possibility of pages being expanded. I am often in the minority opposing merges and arguing for splits. I often see people proposing merges just because pages don't contain enough material to warrant a full page--but they are not anticipating future growth of the page. Joepnl (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cazort, I agree on the merger, and much more on my talk page. Joepnl (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability article

Thank you for adding the section on "Economic opportunity" to the article. It seems to fit well in the Economics section and is a perspective on sustainability that certainly needed to be addressed. With respect to the citations: I think that the three you originally added were good. Apparently when GreenBiz archives news stories, they transfer them to their blog. Thus I found the article on CWR's site and used that as a reference. No need to go beyond that. The three citations are from a variety of sources and adequately support the argument, IMO. Sunray (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

comment

I saw your note regarding David J. Cynamon on User talk:MBisanz. The nominator who nominated that article nominated ten others that day.

And has said he or she thinks most of the remaining articles in Category:Guantanamo Bay attorneys should be deleted.

Administrator MBisanz deleted several other articles User:THF nominated, including Joshua L. Dratell, the coauthor of two significant books, Vice President of the Criminal Attorneys of New York, author of many briefs on civil rights issues -- and widely quoted by a variety of publications on civil rights or terrorism related cases he is not involved. Several publications chose to quote him after the appointments of Michael Chertoff and Patrick Fitzgerald. You can see I asked User:MBisanz to userify the article, but he hasn't responded.

If you have time:

1. I'd appreciate your opinion on my notes on Dratel
2. I'd appreciate your opinion on which articles in which articles from Category:Guantanamo Bay attorneys you think should be deleted or merged, and which you think merit retention as stand-alone articles.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Forensic statistics

I saw you have a masters in statistics. Can I ask you for your opinion on whether there are statistical practices that can detect fraud in a data set?

I have started taking a detailed look at the weight records the DoD published for the Guantanamo captives.

• JTF-GTMO (2006-03-16). "Heights, weights, and in-processing dates". Department of Defense. Retrieved 2008-12-25. mirror

I have found them to be riddled with surprising anomalies. These anomalies trigger doubts for me about the reliability of the figures.

For instance, captive 535's weight records would show a steady weight gain from just over 200 pounds when he arrived to just over 400 pounds in late 2006 -- if it weren't for three periods when his weight records showed a precipitous drop, followed by a precipitous gain. His records, if taken at face value, state that he gained 286 pounds in a single day. I think it is more likely that he gained two or three pounds per month, and for three and a half years, and that those other weights aren't his, should have been recorded in someone else's file.

Many captives, when their weights fell below a certain threshold, started to have their weights recorded more frequently, weekly, or daily, instead of monthly, or quarterly. captive 93's records showed different surprising anomalies. There was a widespread hunger strike in the fall of 2005. Captive 93 weight records showed that his weight dipped as low as 88 pounds, suggesting he was one of the participants. But one of the surprising things is even though a weight was recorded for him, every day, his weight didn't fluctuate every day. For eight days in a row, from 2005-12-12 to 2005-12-19 his weight was recorded at exactly 93.9 pounds. His weight records show these surprising plateaus through-out the period from 2005-10-12 through to 2006-01-12.

In mid-January camp authorities started using "restraint chairs" during forcefeedings. The captives' arms, legs, chest and head were all strapped into these chairs, rendering them immobile. After the force-feeding, they were left in the chair, for an hour or two, until they had digested the nutrient fluid. And, on January 12th, many of the captives started to show extremely rapid weight gains. Weight gains that I don't think were consistent with health. Captive 93's weight records shows he gained 35 pounds in just six days, a 39 % increase in weight.

His weight stopped being recorded on a daily basis on January 18th, presumably because he no longer fell below the threshold considered normal for his height.

Captive 93, Yasser Talal Al Zahrani, is one of the three captives who camp authorities claim committed suicide on June 10, 2006. I am not a medical doctor, and the wikipedia would be an inappropriate place to publish conclusions, even if I were, but I see his medical records suggesting the after-effects of excessive force-feeding played a role in the deaths of these three men. Feel free to email me if you are interested in discussing this.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Cloudbuster: Keep or redirect and merge?

The 2nd Articles for deletion discussion for Cloudbuster closed as "keep," with the note that "any merge/redirect discussions should take place at the relevant talk pages". However, the article was immediately merged and redirected into Orgone energy. The editor who participated in the discussion and then performed the merge believes that the merge/redirect is supported by consensus. I am posting this notice to the talk page of each of the editors who participated in the discussion, including the nominator, to ensure that this is the case. -- Shunpiker (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I think that you raise a valid point about the cloudbuster being considered not only in the context of orgone energy, but also as rainmaking device. Those are separate subjects in my mind: The "cloudbuster" article could be categorized under Category:Weather modification, but that category does not apply to "orgone" as a whole. In any case, I think it's vital that process be followed, and that one especially zealous editor not be allowed to override consensus. --Shunpiker (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Coolbone

It was the subject of a Speedy delete over a year ago - at the time there was no reference material to be found. If that has changed then by all means go ahead and recreate the page. Manning (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Deletions

"Sometimes when I encounter a deleted page, I find myself questioning the deletion process because I cannot see the material that was deleted. Often, being able to see that material would make me understand why it was deleted." Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionpedia Peridon (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Galahad Lager. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. "this was deleted before I was able to give my input into the discussion" Unionhawk ^Talk 20:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

wow... for me: WP:Don't template the regulars...

lol it's ok! =) Cazort (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Your due diligence on M*A*S*H AfD's

thank you for your work on those AfDs. You may also be interested in the few I nominated yesterday. ThuranX (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated a few more today. If you have some time to review them, that would be welcome, I'd feel bad about making a mistake. ThuranX (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

your diligence on the MASH AfDs would be quite valuable, they've become incredibly contentious now. ThuranX (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your further diligence; I'm glad you have the books to actually demonstrate the lack of notability, even with those texts. A couple of the 'sources' someone lsited somewhere in this mess look like vanity press sort of things. Am I right? I cna't recall which ones. Also, see WP:TV for more about this MASH mess I seem to have started. ThuranX (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that you're being attacked Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Showtime_(M*A*S*H) here. ThuranX (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pushed to the Limit

You showed the way... so come on back. The nom didn't check well enough before her nomination. The film had indeed received coverage and reviews 17 years ago and so I expanded and sourced the article to show just that. However, the sweetest gem the nom missed is that the film was screened at a festival 14 years after its release, and WP:NF specifically instructs that makes it notable in that "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.". You helped me find that is was indeed a keeper. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Swiftfuel

Seems you quickly pulled an article or two I haven't yet read. Would you care to improve Swiftfuel? I assume User:NJGW still really wants to get it merged into avgas, so the article will need sharpening before he does that. Your help is appreciated. --SV Resolution(Talk) 13:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Inherited notability

Per your posting, I will restate my views on inherited notability. If something or someone receives press mention or mention in books only in the context of being associated or related to the notable person, then it is more encyclopedic to similarly include mention of them in the article about the notable person. Some of the ancestors of the presidents Bush were highly notable in their own right, in the fields of business or politics. They could likely have satisfied WP:BIO if the two Georges had merely been surfing dudes and never risen to prominence. Some of the distant ancestors, cousins and nieces of the Bushes could only be considered as directory listings, to complete a genealogical chart, and that is matter for Ancestry.com rather than an encyclopedia. The Kennedy children, Caroline and John jr had notable careers in their adulthood. The fact that being the dead president's child opened doors for them that the rest of us cannot expect does not take away from the books, business enterprises, board memberships, appointments, and other career opportunities enjoyed by presidential family members. I do not favor an article on Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, who only lived 2 days. He should be mentioned only in an article about the first family, since he had no notability except as the dying baby. Likewise most presidential pets should not have stand alone articles, unless perhaps they are made prominent by the presidential public relations staff as was Bush's dog Barney, who was featured in several Christmas videos having supposed adventures in the White House. QE2's corgies might merit an article, since they were featured in the series "After People" as an example of how domestic pets would have to adapt to survive. Things or people associated with a national leader get mentioned by a press corps needing material to fill their dispatches. Sometimes they are put forward by the politician's public relations people to humanize the leader. Adlai Stevenson was photographed in the 1952 campaign, supposedly randomly, with a big hole in the bottom of his shoe. It humanized a man who was seen as a distant intellectual. The photo won a Pulitzer Prize in 1953, The campaign motto became "I'd rather have a president with a hole in his shoe than a hole in his head." I counted over 250 Google News Archive hits for the hole in Adlai's shoe, over the following 57 years. The hole and its photo are far more notable than Bill Clinton's father, and about as notable for the same reasons, as Joe the plumber. But it is properly mentioned only in the article about Adlai, because its notability is 100% derived from Adlai's campaign. WP:NOTINHERITED does not forbid articles about things/people/places related to a notable person, but it says that if the notability is entirely derived from the famous person (the thing/person has done nothing noteworthy on its own) then it properly belongs only in an article about the notable person. Joe the Plumber has manipulated his 15 minutes of fame into a wider and more enduring celebrity, so he has more of a claim to notability than some presidential relatives or the hole in Adlai's shoe. If there is something encyclopedic to say about the person (Like the fact that Jimmy Carter's mother Lillian joined the Peace Corps and went overseas when she was 68, and wrote books) then a separate article might be appropriate. The standard does not have to be insurmountable. The requirement is not for articles which do not mention the famous person, just that they say something noteworthy about the person other than who they are related to. Clear enough? Edison (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Did the hole in Adlai's shoe not have over 250 reliable and independent citations? Do you think that a hole in a candidate's shoe should have a standalone article rather than being part of an article about the candidate or his campaign? What is the point of my repeatedly stating my view. The essay WP:NOTINHERITED calls for limiting the findings of notability when all mentions are derivative, and there is not much encyclopedic content about the thing other than its relationship to the notable person. Also note that WP:NOTNEWS similarly limits the power of numerous independent and reliable sources with significant coverage of something to compel us to keep and article about it, if it is just a transient news story. Every week there are "water cooler stories" about a crime, a missing child, a bear stuck in a tree or a kitty in a well which get scads of news coverage but do not belong in an encyclopedia forever. There are many reasons and types of article where WP:N is not absolute. Some exceptions are appropriate when things have only inherited or derivative notability. Maybe WP:N needs to say that. It already says '"Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.' Inherited notability falls into this provision, I suppose. Edison (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Afd OpenCart

I thought, I should notify you I have nominated OpenCart for deletion.--Jamie Shaw (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.192.74.228 (talk)
UTC)

A message from the creator of USC Limited

Dear Cazort, I saw your comments regarding my article, USC Limited. I responded to them, but am not sure if you saw my responses. Therefore, I’m giving you their links, below. I appreciate and respect any considerate advice or thoughts you have in order to make me a better wikipedia writer/editor. Sincerely, 61.192.74.228 (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/USC_Limited
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:USC_Limited
61.192.74.228 (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Bayesian probability (Help)

Gentle Cazort, I liked your previous peace-making efforts against the false dichotomy on Bayesian probability, Bayesian versus orthodox, and subjective versus objective. I'd appreciate your input on recent editing decisions. Collegially, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Your comments were very helpful, personally and for the page. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Banana

I agree with the added POV tag. In fact, there are a number or other fruit related articles that are written in POV which need fixes. Destroyer000 (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ross Zbar

Well, yeah, it is a judgment call. I'm a bit more willing to delete borderline BLPs than other articles. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What information have you to hide?

You delete what you do not want others to see.Borismule (talk) 04:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I deleted a comment you left here because (1) it was not clear what the comment was about (2) it was not clear why you had left the comment on MY page (3) it was not clear to me who you are, and how you located my user page, or why you want my input/consideration, and (4) I saw from your user contributions that you had copy-and-pasted the same message to a number of editors. I suspected spam and foul play but according to WP:Assume good faith, instead, I then left this message: [3] on your talk page in an effort to reach out to you and explain why I deleted the message, and to give you an opportunity to explain yourself. The offer still stands...would you like to explain yourself? I'm open to discussion...but if you are going to spam my page or leave personal attacks I am going to have no other choice but to talk to an administrator. Cazort (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And how legitimate do you think Wikipedia is? Administrators, authors, editors use ficticious names. Cannot verify any of this authenticity. Please tell me how readers can rely on this form of fact finding for "The Project"?Borismule (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I find wikipedia to be very legitimate. I know I use my real name when editing; it's on my user page for everyone to see. And my experience with wikipedia administrators and editors has been very positive. I have found all administrators I've interacted with, and an overwhelming majority of editors, to be very willing to listen, very open to genuine dialogue, and very strongly swayed by more objective evidence (i.e. backing up material in reliable sources) even when there are strong differences of opinion. And I am certainly not an "uncontroversial" editor...I have made very bold, often contentious edits, on controversial topics, and I certainly have my own biases and viewpoints that guide my editing...and I rarely seem to encounter problems here. When I do, it's usually because I'm getting hot-headed, failing to WP:Assume Good Faith, or blatantly disregarding guidelines...which is why I've learned that these things are important. Cazort (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

TYPO3

You opposed the deletion of this article on the grounds that there was tons of coverage, conventional and scholarly. Where is said coverage? Why isn't it in the article? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop reverting?

There is no reason to revert the UAV article at the moment. There is a talk page discussion with the stakeholders already. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC) I'm also putting a copy of this message on User talk:ViperNerd

see CBt talk page comments

cheers Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Torch Relay

If you have some time please provide us with an input at this RFC on 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay article and this Merger Contest. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Persecution of Falun Gong

Hello. I'm contacting the people involved in the earlier discussion about changing the title of this article. A similar argument is currently being run, this time to name it "History of Falun Gong." This note was just to make you aware of this. Best.--Asdfg12345 03:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree with this edit?

Hello Cazort, do you agree with this edit made by Ohconfucius where he put your name into a poll saying that you support the rename of the article from Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China to History of Falun Gong. Also I see that he did some unjustified talk page content removal. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cazort. You have new messages at HappyInGeneral's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for your efforts on the Falun Gong pages. HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback at AFD

Yeah, I see your point about WP:SYNTH here. I'll probably end submitting something to WP:AFC which focuses only on the medical side of things, now that I have more sources. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Cazort, sorry for the delay in replying but I've been busy IRL. Yeah, it's a little odd that there's no main "worldview" article on Healthcare rationing only the Healthcare rationing in the U.S. article and then the addendum you mention to the rationing article which is hardly the first place I would have looked for info on the specific topic of healthcare denial. I myself don't care for Palin or her politics one whiff, which was part of the reason I gave my best effort to encourage editors to explain in their AfD votes what POV they thought I was espousing -- to little avail. I must imagine I kicked up dust on both sides and got rodeo'd?

Anyway, I used an account on and off after the Seigenthaler incident, considering the general disarray at and/or non-existence of WP:AFC, but insomuch-as we're supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, membership or not, I have always preferred to be and do currently remain an IP editor, as I informed an ArbCom member when last I abandoned my logged in account. Accordingly, being able to edit Wikipedia is, to borrow a phrase, a right not a privilege, and I'm happy to be the guy that reminds WP:RFP that indefinite protections of the article flavor of the week aren't a good thing. But were I logged in all the time, I'd never notice such locks. My step-father often said: "locks are there to keep honest people honest"; I believe and present that not all random IP editors are thieves. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

Hello Cazort, would it be OK, if I ask you to give your evaluation on this issue? Thank you in advance. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, here is some recommended reading, just in terms of context. I don't know how else it would seem to you, with people from apparently pro and apparently anti Falun Gong "sides" trying to get you with their spin on things. I guess just read all that you've got patience for and come to your own conclusions (duh). Anyway, here are my top picks: Context: snipurl.com/83u5u, snipurl.com/83tx6; Personal: http://www.newstatesman.com/writers/leeshai_lemish; General: http://www.faluninfo.net/article/504/?cid=141; Poignant: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000%5C000%5C014%5C986himak.asp, http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/824qbcjr.asp; Recent: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/hacking-the-regime. anyway, that's just journalism. You might have got sick of the whole topic already though and vowed not to touch it on wikipedia--though I hope not. The articles need critical distance from their editors. For academic sources I would recommend punching in Ownby and Zhao and reading a couple of their journal articles. Hope this is helpful...--Asdfg12345 08:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Generation Articles

Cazort, I noticed that you’ve had an interest in Generation Jones in the past. Over the last few months, a couple of Wikipedia users have gone to great lengths to try to minimize the presence of GenJones on Wikipedia. I am now back on the site and will carefully help to maintain an accurate representation of GenJones for Wikipedia readers. I message you to ask you to please, if you are interested, to also try to keep an eye on the generation article pages to make whatever edits you feel will be helpful in representing these topics accurately to Wikipedia readers. Thanks.TreadingWater (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)