User talk:74.192.84.101
talkpage TOC
|
|---|
dummy placeholder for TOCAwright, pilgrim. You can TOC the talk. But can you walk the wok? — John Wayne |
the tale of Barek and the multiple-hidden-HTML-comments
|
|---|
|
testing. ((Vandalism information|prefix=User:Barek/|align=))
June 2013
|
the tale of xLinkBot
|
|---|
September 2013Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page KOffice has been reverted.
|
the tale of dynamic addressing
|
|---|
Cable ISP usersI saw your post and you mentioned the IP lease for cable modem operators. If you look inside your router you should see the assigned IP address and the lease time for it from your ISP. Don't lift it up and shine a light into the holes. :) Mine is a seven day lease time from Rogers Cable. This is the minimum time I could possibly change IP addresses if I didn't use it for that length of time. It doesn't happen often without abstaining and resetting it or something like that. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC) I'm a little further south, but yeah, the DHCP lease-time is theoretically a few days here as well. In practice, though, the cable segments are relatively static (market saturation) nowadays, so I get the same IP for a very long time. Years now, methinks, which strongly suggests the cable folks are mapping the modem-mac-address to a preferred-IP, or using a shared-outbound-gateway for everybody on the segment (both the former and the latter are true where I am right now if I'm grokking their setup correctly). But I don't always edit from the same location, so even when router#1 is saving my edits under IP#1, on the weekend I might be editing from router#2 with IP#2. Don't think it has ever caused me a communications-mishap, as far as wiki-editing goes. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC) |
the tale of after-action-review for AC4BF_EU_PS4
|
|---|
Talkback Message added 17:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. |
the tale of the perception of injustice
| |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ban-hammer case study -- Silktork and Op47 versus AhnoneemoosInformation about a recent banning incident, which I happened to run across.
|
the tale of SineBot as a potty-training-tool
|
|---|
Sinebot-generated template-snark talkpage-spam considered harmful WP:BITE
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
|
the tale of WP:AdminsAreSecretService
|
|---|
WP:NOUSERSI tried my best to reply to your WP:WALLOFTEXT but to be honest I don't have the desire to read everything of what you posted. Perhaps if we move the conversation to my Talk page and you try to be concise then we can have a better discussion? Remember that I'm a volunteer so I have to manage my time here with my real life job. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
|
the tale of ThatGirl34
|
|---|
hi,I never said that I would not join your club. But I can't join your club. I do not mean to be offensive. -Thatgirlswholovesmusic34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatgirlswholovesmusic34 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
ps. about Gelatin, you really don't have to get technical about this. I wasn't actually saying [ or typing] that my cousin is a reliable " Source". I was just expressing myself w/ my like's and dislikes. as alway's I do not by any means want to offend you Thatgirlswholovesmusic3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatgirlswholovesmusic34 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
yes, i'm against it.FYI I am against cyber bullying 74.192.84.101. i'm sorry to be rude but I am.... - Thatgirlswholovesmusic34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatgirlswholovesmusic34 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
yes 74hey 74, yes, I will help you get into un article. the Jello article.. I have never made un article before. or really anything,..... Thatgirlswholovesmusic34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatgirlswholovesmusic34 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Alrighty-then. Excellent. We can make plans on your talkpage. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC) |
the tale of duchamps AfD
|
|---|
|
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. |
the tale of the intersecting dogagories
| ||
|---|---|---|
Only half seriousBooks about travelling with dogs. David in DC (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
what groupnames properly delimit Travels with Charley
|
the tale of Barek and the beginning editor
|
|---|
My talk pageIf you want to engage the editor in discussion on their talk page, that's your decision, and I have no problem with you making attempts to reach out to them on their talk page. But please do not restore discussions on my user talk page that I have removed. The edit was related to long-running NPOV vandalism in the Federal Reserve related group of articles - that have a long history of dynamic IPs and single-use accounts attempting to use poorly sourced material to push a specific set of claims. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
|
the tale of ABUSE FILTER ANTI VANDALISM BOHT HAS PREVENTED YOUR HARMFUL ACTION CONTINUE AND BE DESTROYED
|
|---|
404 errorsHi. Can you please give some example pages that give 404 errors. Are these errors persistent? (Replied on my talkpage here and on Meta) πr2 (t • c) 02:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
|
the tale of the good editor who is migrating here from an external wiki
| ||
|---|---|---|
Notice of External links noticeboard discussion
RE: justice wikiaHi. I opened a RFC that Qwyrxian suggested. --MorrowStravis (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help and advice! --MorrowStravis (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
What now? Can we put it back? --MorrowStravis (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
You are a great guy and know lots of things about Wikipedia. Why don't you have an account? --MorrowStravis (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
|
the tale of the determined beginning editor on their way to big trouble in little high school territory
|
|---|
Thanks, but ...Thanks for being nice to Pratham. But ... have a look at what you dismissed as "template spam", again, and you'll find my admittedly lengthy message trying to warn him about copyvio (and Begoon explaining why one image keeps getting deleted). He's headed for trouble very fast with images and the article was also full of copied wording in his versions; if you can get him reading, please try to explain that, too. Thanks and good luck! Yngvadottir (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
This time I responded at my talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Pratham is editing again; I responded to him at Talk:New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC) |
the tale of the long grass of scepticm
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Academic papersArticles about academics often have Bibliography sections. The one about Professor Sheldrake has one, but it doesn't mention any of his academic papers, which I'm told are numerous. Might it be good for Wikipedia if someone added them to the Bibliography? I am willing to do the work, within reason, but I hesitate to step on sensitive toes, or to do work that might be reverted without good reason. Lou Sander (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
"Vast talkpage verbosity is absolutely disruptive in some cases"You said that. Yes, it is. Please limit the length and number of your contributions to Talk:Rupert Sheldrake. You're bloating up the page, and too much of your text reads like stream-of-consciousness. I'm asking you to slow down, and to edit your future contributions for clarity, reader-friendliness, and especially relevance. Your fellow editors are not perfect, but surely they deserve that much. Bishonen | talk 17:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC).
Wars and rumors of warsThere is a rumor that the BBC has, within the last day or so, interviewed a well-known author/lecturer/scientist who commented pretty specifically on a well-known BLP and its argumentative talk page. It's only a rumor, of course, but keep yer eyes on the telly. Lou Sander (talk) 04:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Roxy: Yes, I guess I do know that; that's why I corrected myself. But back when I first listened to the BBC World Service, there WASN'T any television. I just jumped to the conclusion that they had kept up with the times. Lou Sander (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC) TBYou can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. |
the tale of WP:RETENTION and changing the WikiCulture caste-system
|
|---|
TBAgain. And again. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. TBYou can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. |
the tale of the nazi, the nude, and the false poz
| ||
|---|---|---|
November 2013 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. AGK [•] 13:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
reason for block is unclearHello again Anthony, I'm also in the dark on your reasoning. User_talk:AGK#User_74.192.84.101. Your block-message specifying 'generally disruptive editing' and your edit-summary specifies WP:NOTHERE. Instead of specifying a diff that was an example of behavior leading to the block... or, if I might point out, first opening a discussion about that behavior... you just gave a generic rationale. Can you be more specific please, where you are seeing problematic behavior?
My understanding is that blocks are not supposed to be used for punitive purposes, but are supposed to be a way of forcibly opening dialog, when other methods of opening dialog have failed. Well then, consider the forcible dialog opened. But you could have just asked nicely, that I refrain from editing whatever-was-the-trouble, while you explained your concerns. :-/ I'm in the middle of trying to reply to Mark Miller (also of WP:RETENTION) on his question about whether the Second Amendment is for "the people", for "individual americans", for "citizens", et cetera. p.s. You and I once exchanged a couple of emails, concerning an old ArbCom case, at one point. I assume this block today has nothing to do with that? Thanks for your help. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
|
the tale of the colorado high school
|
|---|
Valor Christian High SchoolGlad to see I help keeping you busy, but I suggest you read this info on the talk page of Barek, the admin who semi-protected Valor Christian High School, because there's some valuable info about that article there. Thomas.W talk to me 15:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
|
the tale of the semi-protected page and the true meaning of WP:TALKNO
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
I think you’ve gotten the wrong idea
74, When I mentioned different IPs I didn’t mean that I’ve been doing something unsavory. I just meant that I have literally edited from different places. My job has me moving around a lot. And, what you witnessed wasn’t “bad cop”. That’s not the way bad cop works. In order for there to be a bad cop there must be a good cop as well. What I was trying to do was to be assertive. I figured that since the Sheldrake crew had such difficulty dealing with a simple troll that they probably had assertiveness issues. I don’t think that Vzaak sits down each night and thinks to himself; “how shall I make the Sheldrake page an even more contentious place tomorrow?” That’s not the way that self-saboteurs typically operate. People who thrive on disharmony derive a certain high from conflict. They have a tendency to find ways to create or prolog it. But, like I said to David, psychology isn’t always an exact science. I think Vzaak’s trying to prolong the conflict. You think he’s trying to end it. Perhaps time will tell who’s right, or perhaps it won’t. Either way I think we can both agree that whatever Vzaak is doing hasn’t brought peace to the Sheldrake article. As for the future, I’ve got some things I plan on doing in real life, so you probably won’t be seeing me around for a while. So long, for now. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
|
AV-8B
This is likely to be much harder than either of us thought!
It's great to have an extra non-aviation-specialist looking over the article, as that's exactly one of the deficiencies identified in it at the last FAC (which is worth reading).
A problem though, is that the lead is the one part that's been repeatedly refined by prose experts. So I've resisted changing the parts that were deemed good before. That's not to say they can't change, it just means some careful thought might be needed.
Some thoughts on your thoughts:
- Why "NATO" rather than Anglo-American? I can see the logic (four different NATO countries had some workshare, IIRC, rather than just the UK and USA) but, what do the sources describe it as?
- Beware lengthening prose that's written to be minimalist. ("Prose needs tightening" is a phrase sometimes used.) Just as an example, does adding "itself" really make the text clearer for the reader? Or is it just an extra word?
- The lead is a summary. It's currently about the right length (one large paragraph in the lead per major section in the article body). Not everything in the body can be mentioned in the lead. There might be an argument for a very brief mention of the key points of how the 8B evolved in the lead, ... but I've already had Phil add details in the "Development" section that summarise some of what's in the "Design" section, so we don't want to go too far. Likewise with other additions.
- The horsepower of the various engines is definitely worth mentioning if it can be sourced. But probably not in the lead. Is it already mentioned elsewhere?
Probably more when I have more time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I knew the lead would have been carefully combed, I picked the hardest part so you could show me where the unwritten boundaries were. And I know NATO is not quite totally correct... and some of my other changes, were also likely to be only partly constructive, hence my self-revert. But to take the portions that jumped out at you in order:
- I don't much care about whether *NATO* is specifically mentioned, but there *is* a specific reason for the AV-8B to exist: it was a *very* expensive project, cancelled in the 1970s over money, but kept alive, and then went into production right around 1981. Seem to recall, wasn't there some old guy that became President, trying to spend money like it was going out of style? Cold War? Pounding a shoe on a podium? Aircraft carriers? Hmmmm. The lead is very tight prose: it skips all the context that the everyday reader wants, namely, who paid for it, why, and the usual tell-us-a-story stuff. Right now, it is a dry story about the engineering of a fighter aircraft. But *why* was VTOL needed? *Why* was it intended for ground support? Vietnam? There's tight prose, and then there's excluding relevant historical-political context.
- Minimalist I would agree with. The use of "itself" to refer to the USMC/Spanish/Italian flavor, and "variant" to refer to the RoyalNavy flavor... are they identical? Or did the UK variant have some differences? Manufactured in the UK, by BAE factories, rather than in the USA by Boeing? There are actually a *bunch* of different aircraft involved. Original harrier AV-8A... cancelled-super-Pegasus in 1975 ... second-gen-USMC in 1981 ... british variant on second-gen in 19xx ... radar variant of second-gen in YYYY ... some other variant (mentioned near radar). These latter five flavors are all "the same" jet, and the subject of the article. But apparently they are different enough that the British variant was considered distinct from the USMC original, whereas the Spanish aircraft was just a rebadged USMC, right? So, you tell me: do we need "itself" in that sentence? Or was the UK variant referred to as the AV-8B, and manufactured by Boeing, like the very first sentence says?
- Agree the lead is a summary. But perhaps, if you'll glance over my talkpage, you'll notice that I'm not the person you want in charge of terseness? I'm the person in charge of VERBOSITY. :-) So please, let our strengths be complementary. I'll add 100 words, and you take away 95, and we'll have a super-duper paragraph.
- Don't know if the horsepower figures exist, since that might be top secret data, but I'm mostly objecting to vague-weasel-peacock-wording. Don't tell me the 1975 engine was dramatic; just give me the facts, what was the horsepower (or whatever facts we know) differential? We don't have to use horsepower/kilojoules/lb-ft ... but we should specify the difference with some precision, like saying "23% more powerful engine than the AV-8A was cancelled... later, the redesign work used the same airframe but still managed to fit a 17% more powerful engine..." *That* is useful info that explains to me the difference between the 1975 failed-variant, and the 1981 original-success. If the UK variant fiddled with the engine specs, we can say 2% more powerful, or 3% thicker armor-plating around the cockpit, or whatever. But there's a lot of stuff right now about "greatly/dramatically/significantly/superlatively/uberwhateverly" ... and if we *have* no data, and we can cite some sources using those words, that's cool. But I like numbers. :-)
- Anyways, I'm real easy, I'll make suggestions, and won't be offended whether you take one out of ten, or nine out of ten. (If you take zero out of ten, well, you get challenged to a WikiJoust. :-) I'll go through the article, and fiddle with this or that, paragraph by paragraph, until I hit the bottom. You follow along, and cut out the fat, plus correct my mistakes (not really a NATO project? Well, then, maybe that's worth saying... *why* was it not a NATO project? Was the VTOL stuff purposely kept from the French slash Airbus folks? Hmmmmm. Hope this helps start your wheels turning. Do you have a sandbox we can put the article in, so that my flailing doesn't mess up mainspace? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Replies
Letting you know you have replies at my talk page and at Thomas.W's - well, that one is more of a sticking my nose in. Since I am aware you have no watchlist. Not that I scintillated in any of those replies, but ... Yngvadottir (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hehehe... catch you later, scintillater. Don't tell spouse-of-Drmies. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for stalking!
The suggestions you've left for editors on my talk page are mega-helpful. Thanks for taking the time to respond so thoughtfully and comprehensively - particularly as regards the Walt Odets article. Stalk my page anytime! Julie JSFarman (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Julie, appreciate your appreciation, gracias. If you see something that needs my particular nutty brand of commentary, please ping me here.
- p.s. Actually, I'm trying to put together a fun-quick-teaming scheme, where small groups of beginning editors can try their hand at something reasonably easy and fun, and the AfC queue seems like a great place to send in wiki-swat-teams to wreak havoc. Nothing even vaguely good-faith-helpful gets reverted in the AfC queue, there is plenty of low-hanging-fruit that obviously needs help, and there is a three-week-backlog that needs reducing, right? Does this sound like: A) great idea, B) maybe productive if they have an experienced team-mommy, C) whatta you outta yer gourd? :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Also! So many submissions I'm perplexed by. A lot of times I end up doing some clean-up and leaving the submissions for someone else to review; don't want to decline anything that's good faith, borderline, and represents a lot of work. Would LOVE to get your help/feedback. JSFarman (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Your perception of my status vis-a-vis the gourd is insightful-yet-painfully clear! Congratulations on your high intelligence. :-) Most folks take at least ten conversations before they can definitively say I'm out of my gourd. <grin> 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Also! So many submissions I'm perplexed by. A lot of times I end up doing some clean-up and leaving the submissions for someone else to review; don't want to decline anything that's good faith, borderline, and represents a lot of work. Would LOVE to get your help/feedback. JSFarman (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Anyways, yes, if you are perplexed by any submissions, or just see something needing help you don't have time to give, feel free to ping me with a link, and I'll try and see what is up with them. Once I get some sort of fun-quick-teaming system in place, maybe there will be a central place for submitting such AfI requests. (Articles For Improvement.) When you send me an AfC submission that needs wikiLove, please include:
- URL of course ... could be Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Les_Pendleton but better to use [13] if that is easy-enough, since changes might happen between the time you make your request, and I get around to looking over the page in question
- minimum level of wiki-expertise reqd (in terms of wiki-markup and WP:PG -- just use expert/medium/beginner for starters I guess -- but instead of specifying expertise-level-of-the-editor we can say hard/medium/easy as a way to specify the expertise-level-demanded-by-the-fix-in-question), and
- priority-ordered keywords for what the article needs most (cites / tone / copyEdit / expand / clarify / etc). Feel free to write sentences instead, or to just list 'top 3 problems' or whatever works best for you.
For example, if you have an article that is ready for mainspace, but needs some additional citations in a highly technical portion of the topic, you might ask for
- URLz: cleanup on aisle four aka Lenticular
- GeneralSkillz: needs medium wiki-expertise to create mainspace-grade refs
- SpecificProbz: math-expertise-reqd + clarify the concepts
But you don't have to type all that out, instead just use some sort of shorthand, maybe like this:
- AfI; Lenticular#Math; med/cites; math expert, clarify.
Along the same lines, example #2, if you have an article in the AfC queue which is just a mess, but already has good refs as bare-URLs, you might ping this subsection of my talkpage with something like this:
- AfI; [14]; easy/all med/cites; copy edit, tone, clarify, cite-cleanup, expand.
Anyways, please feel free to suggest better shorthand, or an alternative approach/system, or whatever. After you and I get the basic language-of-AfI-communication hammered out, we'll try and get Mabdul or one of the other javascript wizards to upgrade the AfC gadget, so that you can submit an AfI request automagically right from your AfC-helper-wiki-tool. That way, instead of you manually sending me a talkpage message, you can just hit some key-combo or click some checkboxes, and the AfI request will be put into the wiki-hero-mission-kiosk app (which does not exist yet but will be used for the fun-quick-teaming thing I mentioned earlier). Maybe instead of using template-tagging at the top of articles, or using the category-system, we can figure out a way to use WikiData for the AfI-communication-language? Hmmmm.
p.s. Guess I should ask this first. Do you actually use the Wikipedia:AFCH for your work, at the moment? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
AfI
- AfI for
AfC-rescue; Pendleton; easy/allmed/cites; double-check WP:N, complete rewrite, tone,cite-cleanup. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Capture the WP:NOTEWORTHY sentences,[15] and put them in the existing articles (famous resident of new NC hometown in article on hometown + reviews of book about female Lewis in her BLP article + article about MarioBrosMovie in article about that movie + maybe reviews of ghost-written book for judge into their BLP article if any of the judge-related-sources were WP:RS). Author has a new six-book series in 2013/2014, if that does well, and gives them more press, may revisit the decline in spring 2014. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC) - AfI for AfD-rescue; TrackIT; easy/all; cite-verify,[16] tone, special request,[17][18] expand, copy edit. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- AfI for
AfD-rescue; PrincessK; med/all;cite-verify,[19]tone, train creator[20]. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Done, partially -- check back again mid-January. - AfI for AfC-rescue; Parivaar; easy/all; cite-verify, write prose, optionally help find other puppets. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- AfI for AfD-rescue; SORCER; hard; verify peer-reviewed Notability, de-jargonize prose, help various experts learn the ropes. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- AfI for POV-rescue; Huff; med; modify prose to reflect weight as found in the sources, swim through hundreds of sources, deal with outing-policy correctly. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- AfI for PROD-rescue; Chakraborty; easy; heavily advertorial BLP, find likely-COI editors and train in WP:TONE, where is TRPoD when you need them? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Yo Ho Ho
.jpg)
ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec13}} to your friends' talk pages.
...and speaking of aortae
Have you ever heard the lyrics to Mason Williams' You Dun Stomped on My Heart? The chorus has one of my favorite rhymes in all of comic music. David in DC (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- "...And you mashed that sucker flat / You just sorta stomped on my aorta..." Hooo boy. What happens when you spin the turntable counterclockwise? I like the Smothers Bros. (especially the yo-yo), and wikipedia alleges that Mason 'Jar' Williams was in their band, but I have never heard this particular tune he wrote. Wonder if there was ever a combination-remix from all John's greatest hits. "You fill up my senses / like a stomped-on aorta...." — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- When I saw them in Vegas, he led their back-up band. They took a break mid-show for Williams and the band to play Classical Gas, with the Bros. explaining who he was and why they were doing it, first. Grrrreat show. David in DC (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Heh heh heh... I know that song but I also, just like the article says, have always thought it was Clapton. Huh. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- When I saw them in Vegas, he led their back-up band. They took a break mid-show for Williams and the band to play Classical Gas, with the Bros. explaining who he was and why they were doing it, first. Grrrreat show. David in DC (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
the tale of the parallel development question and the essay on connations of consensus
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Barnstars for you!
|
DUROMAC article
hey, thanks for helping me to improve my DUROMAC article. as you mentioned, you would like to hear anything about DUROMAC from newspaper, government article. I would like to tell you, yes, you can find it! firstly, here is a link of DUROMAC has been certified by Directorate General Technical Airworthiness, which is Malaysian government. "AMO Certification of DUROMAC(M)SDN BHD". Secondly, there is a article called " good and thorough job" from the local newspaper,"The Star", published in 11 January, 2013. I saved my DUROMAC page in my sandbox, please go thought it and tell me what I still need to change it. Because I really want to make an appropriate content in order to meet the requirements of Wikipedia. Thanks in advance!--Clover1991 (talk) 01:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- No problem, glad to help. Our first steps are to find some more newspaper-articles and similar things. I found one from 2008, but there are probably others, we should search for more. Our second step is to write brand-new sentences (never copying from www.duromac.com , never copying from www.theStar.com.my , never copying from non-wikipedia sentences in general) because of the laws about sentences and authors. See my longer explanation below. After we have written up the facts, and listed the sources for those facts, we will submit the article to the AfC reviewers, and they will help you get everything looking nice and professional. I expect it will take a little bit of time, but if we can find enough in-depth coverages, Duromac should be an article in wikipedia by the end of the year. Sorry everything seems complicated, but wikipedia is an important website, so there are good reasons for the strange traditions we have here. Welcome to the tribe, we are glad to have you, and thanks for helping improve wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
copyright versus cut-and-paste
Wikipedia servers are in Florida in the United States, and they have very strong laws in the United States about authors. To make the Duromac article properly, we need to write it ourselves. We cannot copy what we write for wikipedia from www.TheStar.com.my -- we have to write our own sentences, from scratch, and then put our wikipedia-sentences under the wikipedia license, for everybody to own.
This also means we cannot copy sentences from www.duromac.com -- because wikipedia does not own that website.
Instead of copying sentences, we must write new sentences, of our own, that use the facts from the Duromac website, and the facts from TheStar newspaper. Does this make sense? It is very important, because wikipedia can get in big legal trouble, if editors like you and me cut-and-paste sentences (or pictures or videos or music) from some website that is outside wikipedia. You did not know this, of course, so it is fine if you did that already, fixing such things is easy -- but you and I need to always write original sentences, never copy sentences, from now on, okay? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
mentions of Duromac, or the Duromac founders/managers/products, in reliable sources
Do you have a URL for the "good and thorough job" article in TheStar in 2013? It sounds like a great source, but somebody needs to verify the contents; I looked at www.TheStar.com.my but had trouble finding the article itself. I also manually found two older articles:
- Mention of duromac opening a branch-office in Kuala Lumpur in 2008, attended by Samy Vellu, in google-cache.[21]
The first 2008 article in TheStar is mostly about politics and Samy Vellu, who was the Works Minister from 1995 through 2008. This is WP:NOTEWORTHY.
- Couple paragraphs about Duromac, including photo-op of the sweeper-equipment, and quote from Vellu.[22]
This is significant coverage, good enough for WP:N, if we can find others. South_Klang_Valley_Expressway was the larger project covered in the first half of the article; but the press conference about the expressway was held immediately after Vellu attended the opening ceremonies for the Bandar Kinrara branch-office of Duromac, so the second half of the article is all about Duromac's role.
However, I had some trouble, when I search for "duromac" in the archives[23] there is a bug in the software (it says "Sorry no record found" even though there are articles in 2008 and 2013 at least). Are you able to search from your location? Maybe I get the error because I am not in Malaysia.... 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I also had trouble looking up the Duromac certificate from the Malasian Air Force, it seems they changed their website around.[24] I was able to find some evidence in this blog, Duromac is #17 in the list.[25] However, wikipedia does not allow blogs as sources, because they do not have a professional editorial staff (like TheStar newspaper). That means we cannot use MalaysiaFlyingHerald at wordpress -- we need something better. It is okay for wikipedia editors like us to *verify* the former content of websites from cached copies. In this case, I was able to find the DGTA announcement in the google.com cache (see also[26]), which is a reliable source.
There is only a paragraph, but it covers a real-world event, making this our second WP:N reliable source: the conditional award of the maintenance contract in January 2012 for RMAF runway-sweepers, successful RMAF DGTA audit completed in June, full certification approved in July, and the official certificate-handover-ceremony in September, held at the Bandar Kinrara branch-office, with RMAF Brigadier General Teoh Siang Chang[27][28][29] personally delivering the paperwork to Managing Director Arul Das (accepting on behalf of Duromac). Do you have any other government website or printed-publications that mention Duromac? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTEWORTHY mention in Financial Express of India.[30][31]
WP:NOTEWORTHY mention in the New Straits Times.[32] Reliable dupe?[33][34] Reliable dupe? [35] Dupe?[36] Dupe?[37]
Maybe useful if translated? [38][39][40] 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe useful per bi-directional WP:ABOUTSELF? [41][42][43] Confirmation of ACMAT connection, not sure if this is a reliable source or not.[44] European supplier chamber-of-commerce listings.[45][46][47] 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Exhibitions and shows.[48][49][50]
Thanks from Clover
Hello, thanks a lot for helping me to find all the reliable sources, I really really really appreciate it. Meanwhile, I would like to show you two more references I found of DUROMAC. Firstly, as you already know, DUROMAC has been involved in Malaysia-German Chamber of Commerce and Industry. There is a magazine called " MGCC PERSPECTIVIES", in page 34, there is a article about DUROMAC, called" DUROMAC AWAEDED AMO CERTIFICATE". I think this is published by government. I am sorry, there is no link for this article online, I only could show you this [51] BTW, if you think the original picture of 'AMO CERTIFICATION' is important, I can scan and update to Wikipedia( since there is no original picture of this certification online before, I think it is useful?) do you think is it necessary to do it?
Secondly, here is a link [52] called "first woman driver of 16-tone road sweeper". I am sorry this is in Malay. There is a English version in newspaper , but I can't find it online.
Since the sources you gave to me and also the references I found by myself, I am confused right now, how can I use all the relevant information to approve all the content I wrote for DUROMAC? Could you please give me some suggestion?
All in all, I am really appreciate what you did for DUROMAC, you are the person with the warmest-heart ever!--Clover1991 (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hello clover, thanks for your kind words. No, there is no need to scan the AMO certificate; I verified the facts from a cached copy of the site, and that is good enough for wikipedia. I will split my other replies into subsections, thanks for your efforts. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
worthwhile step -- make sure to mention any relationship with Duromac Sdn Bhd that you may personally have
Because of concerns about the reliability of articles, many wikipedia editors are worried about bias. There is nothing wrong with being biased; everybody is. It is perfectly normal and natural. But it is a special problem for wikipedia, if editors work directly on articles in mainspace where they are inherently biased. Editors should not directly edit articles about their employer, their customers, their family, or even their local politicians or their local city, especially if they have strong feelings about the topic. For example, editors should not directly make changes to an article about their own grandmother: because they love their grandmother, the article would become biased, instead of maintaining a fair, neutral, just-the-facts tone.
In your case, it sounds like you care about Duromac, so you should probably do two things. First, instead of editing Duromac directly, yourself, you should try to suggest changes and additions and sources, so that other editors (who are not in any way involved with Duromac and will therefore have an easier time being neutral) can actually perform the edits, and make the changes. Does this make sense?
Second, you might consider helping other editors out. Perhaps they are working on an article, and they are too close to the topic to stay neutral -- maybe you can help them, like I am helping you. See my list above, if this is appealing to you. Maybe you can make some edits to the article on Les Pendleton, or on TrackIt. Or maybe those are boring to you, and you would rather help somewhere else? Just ask, there are plenty of people that need help. Or you can try answering some of the questions over at WP:TEAHOUSE.
Of course, you do not have to. You are required to be WP:NICE to other editors, but you are not WP:REQUIRED to do any editing-work that you do not feel like doing. But it helps you to learn how wikipedia works, if you help other folks out. Plus it is fun meeting new and interesting people. :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
next step -- how we can turn the relevant sourced information into a Duromac article in mainspace
I believe we are ready for you to kick off the phase where our Duromac article will begin to go through the AfC process. This takes a couple of weeks, usually -- there are 2300 articles waiting to be approved. However, the Duromac article needs to be looked over by someone with experience, who has no relationship with the company, and AfC is the best way to do that.
We are going to rewrite the Duromac article, as part of the AfC process. There are two reasons for this. First, some editors are worried that the content you wrote for Duromac in your sandbox, has some sentences which are too close to being copied from the www.duromac.com website, and are worried about wikipedia getting into legal trouble from Duromac Sbn lawyers. To be safe, the best way is to write brand new sentences.
The second reason to write the article again from the beginning, is that we have a lot more sources now! :-) Wikipedia should reflect the sources, neutrally and without bias. Because you are proud of Duromac, it is hard for you to be neutral, just like it would be hard for me to write about an important company in my country. The best approach is to let uninvolved editors check over our work. So here is what I suggest:
- Let us agree on a good sentence or two, just as a rough draft (we can always improve and expand it later).
- I suggest this: Duromac (formally known as "DUROMAC (M) SDN. BHD") is a Malaysian corporation founded in 1996 which supplies road-sweeping equipment and services for city streets in Kuala Lumpur and the surrounding area. Recently[when?], they have also been awarded equipment-maintenance contracts for military runways and military 6x6 vehicles. Do you like these, to begin with?
- If you think that is a good beginning, then we should put those two sentences -- and only those two sentences -- into the WP:AfC wizard.
- Because of the worries about copying sentences without permission, you should not copy your sandbox content into the AfC submission.
- We have a lot of sources, but our *key* important sources, where Duromac has in-depth coverage, are the following.
- Reliable Source #1 to prove Notability, Duromac certified by RMAF for equipment-maintenance contract involving runway-sweepers.[53] Dead link at present, but User:74.192.84.101 verified the former contents in google-cache. One paragraph, but covers a real-world event.
- Reliable Source #2 to prove Notability, Duromac branch office opening attended by the government's Works Minister, including speech and photo-op.[54] Couple of paragraphs and photo; covers a real-world event. Second mention, this one only in passing.[55]
- Potential Reliable Source #3 to prove Notability, "Good and Thorough Job" in TheStar newspaper 2013-01-11. Did you find a URL for this one, so I can verify how many paragraphs are about Duromac?
- Those are the key important sources we know about so far, and of course we also have several WP:NOTEWORTHY mentions-in-passing, plus plenty of WP:ABOUTSELF material that is usable.
Does this approach make sense? We should first concentrate on sources that have *paragraphs* of coverage, specifically about Duromac. Then, we can add in more information. But to start with, we should start with a blank article in the AfC queue, with a couple sentences, and a couple key sources. Then somebody like FiddleFaddle or Acroterion or some other uninvolved editor -- with more experience than me -- can come along and make sure we're starting out properly. Once our first couple sentences, and our first couple of sources, look good... then we can add another paragraph. We will grow the article slowly, like a tree grows from a seed. Sound like a plan? Let me know if you like this idea, thanks. Then I will explain AfC further. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
MGCC article is probably WP:ABOUTSELF because money changed hands, they are not 'independent' enough
The MGCC Perspectives magazine is probably not useful as an independent reliable publication, because Duromac has to pay membership fees to the MGCC, and the articles in MGCC Perspectives are not written by journalists and fact-checked by an editorial board. Does this make sense?
If somebody from Duromac wrote the article, and paid to have it published, it counts as information that *might* be okay to go into the article (see the WP:ABOUTSELF information), but it does not qualify as WP:RS because it is partially self-published, or at least, paid-publication. Wikipedia does not cite press releases except for WP:ABOUTSELF, which cannot contain anything laudatory. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Bharian article is WP:NOTEWORTHY but not quite WP:N
Never a problem that the material is not in English; my apologies for not being multi-lingual, and my thanks for bringing the facts here to enWiki. There are some tools on the internet that permit machine translation from most languages. Open this link[56] and then select "auto-detect into English", then finally paste in this URL of the story[57] and you will have the badly-mauled-pseudo-english-version. Here are the facts from the story:
- Salmiah Mat Saad, age 50, grandmother, wins an award for her job-performance as the driver of a road-sweeper in Kuala Lumpur, where she is responsible for a 70km stretch
- the award is from Buchaer-Scholing (( aka Bucher-Schoeling aka Bucher-Schörling -- see Ventspils w/ photo of one of their buildings )) , Switzerland-based supplier of the type of machinery she drives at her job
- the text on the award was "first female driver in the world of 16-tonne road-sweeper" (question: is this only the first female driver in the world for Buchaer-Scholing 16-tonne road-sweepers, or for all models and all vendors of 16-tonne-and-up road-sweepers everywhere?)
- there was a real-life appreciation ceremony for Salmiah (question: was it held in 2010?)
- the ceremony was held at the Wisma office-location of DRB-HICOM corporation. (question: is this sentence correct?)
- the award was presented to Salmiah by Arul Das, director-general of Duromac
- noteworthy attendees included Ahmad Nadzarudin Abd Razak, head of Corporate Services Division at DRB-HICOM
- noteworthy attendees included Mohd Zain Hassan, CEO at Alam Flora Sdn , which is the DRB-HICOM subsidiary in charge of sanitation & street-sweeping
- there was a press-conference following the ceremony; Salmiah was quoted , saying she appreciated the outside recognition , as a welcome change from past attitudes
- the CEO is quoted saying that the Malaysian government has plans to increase the number of female road-sweepers, who are especially good at being patient with the large machinery
- the CEO is quoted saying one of the purposes of the appreciation-ceremony was to entice other women to apply for employment in these future road-sweeper-positions
- one of her daughters(?) was also quoted; (named Perak or maybe named Selama?);
- this person worked for Alam Flora Sdn as a hand-sweeper(?) for 5 years, mini-sweeper-driver for 3 years, then tractor-trailer driver, and is now also a road-sweeper-driver
- the daughter(?) said at first it took them three months to get the trust of their male co-workers, but since that point, the same folks are the first people to support them
So from this list of facts, we see that most of the article is about Alam Flora Sdn (or employees thereof). Buchaer-Scholing is mentioned as WP:NOTEWORTHY. Duromac is also mentioned as WP:NOTEWORTHY. Furthermore, there was a WP:NOTEWORTHY mention of Arul Das, who played a key role in the award-ceremony, as the representative of the machinery-suppliers. But it was only one sentence, so although it helps support the case for Duromac, it does not quite qualify as "significant in-depth coverage". Does this make sense? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
DUROMAC new article
Hey, thanks again for your help! I have a URL of " good and Through job".But the problem is,in this link you cant find any where mention about" DUROMAC" and even there is no single pictures. However, this article in newspaper "The Star" do have pictures of DUROMAC's road-sweeper. Now I am confused that maybe this is not enough to approve DUROMAC's notability. Don't you think so?
I can't find " AFC" you mentioned, could you please forward me a link?
Since I can't find " AFC" right now, then I decide to write it here and first let you know to check how is it. Is it ok?
- Hello Clover, certainly you can start writing new sentences here. Your draft below looks good. Here is the link to create the new Duromac article -- WP:Article_wizard. Paste in your sentences below, and your sources below, and then send me the link to the AfC submission that the software creates, and we will go to the next step. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Start with article
DUROMAC (formally known as " DUROMAC(M)SDN BHD)is a Malaysian corporation founded in 1996, which supplies road-sweeping equipment and services for industrial in Puchong and the surrounding area. In 2008, DUROMAC's new building opening attended by Samy Vellu, who is government's Works Minister.[58] In 5 September 2012, they have also been awarded equipment-maintenance contracts for military runways by RMAF. [59]
So this is like basically what we can find all the relevant sources to approve DUROMAC. What else I can still write down for DUROMAC?--Clover1991 (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is just the start. These are our *best* sources so far. To have a dedicated article called Duromac, we need in-depth coverage. We have two good sources for that. It might be enough, but three sources with in-depth coverage is better. We should keep looking for more press-reports. Do you know somebody who works at Duromac, that we can ask? Maybe they will know of other newspaper articles, or television coverage, where Duromac or the managers are mentioned.
- Once the article is in the AfC queue, we can start adding other sentences. For example, we can write a new sentence about the award to Salmiah, which was presented by Arul Das. That is WP:NOTEWORTHY and belongs in wikipedia. However, it was only a brief mention of Duromac, so by itself that particular source does not prove WP:NOTE. Do you understand the difference here? In-depth coverage justifies creation of a new article about the topic. Brief-mention justifies adding another sentence to such an article. Let me know if this makes sense. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
DUROMAC (formally known as "DUROMAC(M)SDN BHD") is a Malaysian corporation founded in 1996,[1] which supplies road-sweeping equipment and services for industrial and government clients in Puchong and the surrounding area. In 2008, DUROMAC opened a new building; Samy Vellu, the government's Works Minister at that time, attended the ceremony and spoke[2] at the press conference afterwards. In January 2012, DUROMAC was awarded[3] an equipment-maintenance contract related to military runways by the RMAF.
- hey, I tried to copy and paste the article we made it for DUROMAC into " article-wizard", but it said invalid content. Is it something wrong?--Clover1991 (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Try starting very very simply. Just put this: DUROMAC is a Malaysian corporation founded in 1996. We can edit the page, and expand it with our full paragraph-so-far, once the AfC submission is created. If you get the error again, tell me the URL and the step you were on please. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Articles for creation
Hey, I made a draft version in Articles for creation, here is a link [60]. please check it. We can still edit and once we done everything, we can send it for review, right?
btw, I know the CEO of DUROMAC, actually, all references I founded is offered by him. So I think these two sources are most useful. hmmm, then what we are going to do the next step? --Clover1991 (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey, please check my articles for creation, I made the final version of DUROMAC. Please help me to check it and tell me what I still need to improve.... thankssssss!--Clover1991 (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Whisperback
Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page.
JianhuiMobile talk 03:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
PK
If you can succeed with the massive influx of help you have my complete support. It was important to get her attention. Now we have it. Now, if she is willing, we can work. Or, probably,m you can, since I doubt she will accept help from me despite my offer being genuine. Fiddle Faddle 19:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, appreciate it. However, I will quibble: if she refuses your help, and holds a grudge, then she is not worthy to be a wikipedian, because she would not yet truly grok pillar four. Being WP:NICE does not mean secretly plotting revenge whilst being polite to your frenemies in public... it means letting bygones be bygones, and every single day, really really assuming good faith. Your actions have at all times (well -- that I've seen -- maybe you too were once a beginner... :-) have clearly been a shining credit to all wikipedians, and I expect PrincessK to live up to the same high standards. Pillar four or hit the door, is my motto. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
- I appreciate the points you make, and the trouble you have taken, 74. I am experiencing some off-wiki real life stress at the moment, but I will be addressing the points on the relevant page very soon. I would appreciate it, if you can hold the fort there for a little bit till I contribute further. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, no problemo. I'll see if I can find somebody to watchlist this one. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Cool. I am already watching the page and have added Syrian navy, too. But all of my 27 various intelligence handlers, except the woman from Uzbekistan, think I should just stick to gnoming for a bit, so I will be doing a watchiong brief :) Seriously, a few real life issues have cropped up, so my temper and judgement may be temporarily affected on stressy subjects. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- You lucky.[61] Me not.[62] Sigh. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Cool. I am already watching the page and have added Syrian navy, too. But all of my 27 various intelligence handlers, except the woman from Uzbekistan, think I should just stick to gnoming for a bit, so I will be doing a watchiong brief :) Seriously, a few real life issues have cropped up, so my temper and judgement may be temporarily affected on stressy subjects. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, no problemo. I'll see if I can find somebody to watchlist this one. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Notice on Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia
Hello, I would like to inform you that a requested move proposal has been started on the Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia talk page. I have sent you this message since you are an IP user who has participated in one or more of these discussions and have expressed interest in the topic. Thank you for reading this message. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Toolserver and labs
Here's the main Signpost report. There has been vacillation back and forth since then on funding and staffing - for example - but Toolserver has been dying (it goes down frequently, lags develop, etc.), and labs is still not ready, much though it seems to attract tool programmers for technical reasons. Here's the relevant page on the meta discussion wiki, last edited 11 November. Complicating factors: Toolserver still has the policy that if someone doesn't edit there for 6 months, their tools all lapse. TParis in particular have taken over orphaned tools (such as the edit counter) as this happens, but that adds to their workload in migrating tools to labs, where they have to be written differently, and it means the taken over tools get moved over there immediately, so they stop working as they did - because labs still doesn't replicate toolserver in functionality. (And appears to have been subject to delay after delay as WMF takes its own sweet time developing it and as the usual missed deadlines in a programming project pile up.) Increasingly obvious examples are the edit counter lacking deleted edits and the hinky replacement for "show contributions in all projects". I don't know what happened to the two sysadmins in Amsterdam who were minding the Toolserver machines; I hope they found other good jobs. I feel bad for Wikimedia Deutschland. I appreciate the hard work programming stuff on labs. But it is a big old mess caused by WMF insisting (procedurally and by withdrawing financing) on substituting their own space with its own newer! better! programming environment for something that had been set up independently and worked well ... and then letting the community down by not having it fully ready by any of their own deadlines (as most had predicted would be the case). Yngvadottir (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC) ... P.S.: I know I owe you a long reply. But I keep getting diverted by stuff, not to mention moping over things. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Talkback: Honda D15B8
hi. not sure how to message people or "ping" you so I'm doing it this way. you asked about the D15B8 ECU. I answered on my page. where/how do we discuss your needs? thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.28.106 (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, thanks for your reply, appreciate it. (Leaving me a note like you did is usually called "messaging" so you got it just right. There is also a way to "ping" people, which you can see somebody did in the section right below this one where Purplewowies sent me a little template-thingamabob. I can show you how to do it, if you care, but they are just a frill, so I never use them personally.)
- I saw there was some trouble about getting the ECU code into the article, which seems a shame, so I tried to look it up. Honda publishes almost no information online, as you prolly know. I have some Haynes manuals, and I think the library prolly has Chilton, but not specifically for the CX. Here is what I was able to unearth, but it contradicts what some places say, so now I'm just flat confused. :-) Some sources say P05 and some say P06, but these guys have them all.[63][64][65][66]
- D15B8 can accept OEM#
- for 1992-1993 models
- 37820-P05-A00/L00/A01/L01,
- 37820-P06-A51
- 37820-P06-A50/L00/L01/L50/L51,
- 37820-P06-A00/A01,
- 37820-P09-A00/L00
- for 1994-1995 models
- 37820-P05-A02/L02 sans-MT,
- 37820-P06-A52 sans-MT,
- ((missing?))
- 37820-P06-A02 with-M.T.-emissions (CA?),
- 37820-P07-L02RM with-M.T.-emissions (CA?)
- for 1992-1993 models
- Other places would talk about P05 and P06, but this place used the fullsize part-numbers. Does any of this look right to you? Does your vehicle have the A**/L** suffix stuff? Gracias. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
1. Thank you for being WAY super cool. (why aren't people like you in power instead of Drmies?)
2. I will thank you more and talk about your wonderfully funny points when I have time. (got stuff to do today)
3. Glad I said I'm not an ECU specialist because I had no idea there would be so many ECUs for a puny 8-valve!
4. Before answering your question... Need to clarify that there were two different CXs. You seem to understand that you are focusing on the CX models with the D15B8 engine, made from 1992-1995. Just pointing out that the 1996-2000 generation Civic line also featured a CX, but the engine was the noticeably more powerful D16Y7. (I owned one of those cars too and although significantly faster than the 92-95 series CX, you paid for it, in higher fuel consumption). You're talking 92-95 only, right? Just checking.
5. Answering your question... I don't know. I like to say "I don't know" when I can't be absolutely sure. I have two CX engines w ECUs and two VX engines w ECUs. (I also have a D15B7 - the DX engine). Since this topic is only about the CX then here's what I can disclose: I have a "92" and a 95. The '92 is in quotes because I'm not the original owner. I bought the engine and ECU from a guy off CL. He said it was a 1992. I saw the car the engine was from so that was enough [citation needed] for me. I seem to remember the car did not have a passenger airbag so it's either a '92 or '93 at the latest. The seller also plugged the ECU into another hatchback, started the engine, and saw it work perfectly. So there's my "proof".
6. Label from that aforementioned '92 CX I acquired:
37820-P05-A00
730-508063
=IPT=
and to the right of the above code was the double-sized APT.
7. Details... It was a manual transmission, probably not from California. The date was stamped (in ink) "MAR 1 1 '92". And molded into the alloy chassis is a "1" over a "91" in a circle that looks like a little sun dial. I took photos of this ECU. If you would like me to upload them (to appease stubborn skeptics like Mr.choppers) I'd be happy to. (just tell me how).
8. the other D15B8 ECU is a 1995 and still in the original CX car. I'm reluctant to spend the time pulling the carpet off (and who knows what other parts) to gain access to it. I'll photo that one too but only if you really want me to. I don't like doing time-consuming things for free.
Sorry for the lengthy answer :/ The behavior of the two listed below has me feeling compelled to list every detail, right down to the last baryon, gluon, and meson.
-the D15B8 guy who's tiny additions keep getting undo'd by the undudes Mr.choppers and Drmies. 24.136.28.106 (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, right now I'm just working on the D15B8 for the 1992-1995 CX. I'm no specialist either, and you have the part-in-hand knowledge that was crucial. We can expand from there, later, once we get the rhythm going. Rather than call you the D15B8 guy, how about I call you 24, after the first part of your computer-number? Think of it like a football jersey; you can call me 74. Length is no problemo for me, I suffer the same disease. :-)
- As for the proof that you supplied, gracias, the numbers from the 1992 ECU were the thing that clinched it for us. No need to upload the photo of the '92, everybody trusts you can read "p05-a00". But the reason I wanted you to check, was to see whether it showed the same numbers as the www.autopart.com folks were claiming. They have the best data available online, and they are an official ECU-remanufacturer for Honda. That's called a "primary source" in the wikipedia jargon -- Honda is also a primary source, whereas Chilton's and Haynes are secondary sources. If some mechanical-engineering-professor wrote a paper summarizing all the Chilton/Haynes/Car&Driver datasets, that would be a tertiary-source.
- As for the 1995 ECU, no need to pull up the carpet, let alone upload a photo. We can pretty well trust now that autopart.com has their info close enough, and get the ECU codes put into the D15B8 section of the page. Of course, first I'll need to talk this over with Drmies, and get the page unprotected (or maybe they will put the stuff in for us -- if they're still nervous about Honda folks adding information all wild-n-crazy-like). Wikipedia is kinda like the IRS, unfortunately... all that matters is the paperwork. That's not all that matters to me, so I wanted to make sure autopart was likely *true* as well as paperwork-compliant.
- Now, my next question is, before we talk about rev-limit and teeth-counting and such: do you have a service manual for your Honda, or at least, an owner's manual? Cause that sort of paperwork will be extremely helpful to us in our quest. And no, you don't gotta become a librarian for this. We'll get somebody else to do that part. :-) But I don't have the manuals, and I want somebody to be able to double-check our librarian's work.
- p.s. We're still gonna have to work on your WP:NICE pillar-four-stuff a bit. WP:BATTLEGROUND is worth a skim, but basically what it says is that wikipedia is not supposed to be about fighting. This ain't about winning, or who is in charge. Everybody here is in charge. Wikipedia is for the readers! Drmies is an admin, but they don't run things; admins are No Big Deal, as the founder will tell you, straight up. Admins have been around the block, and have a good clear understanding of how wikipedia is supposed to work... which means it should be straightforward to get this ECU stuff worked out with Drmies.
- And again, I can swear, MrChoppers is trying to help; they got in a fight with you, because they spend a ton of time doing the thankless cleanup-task of keeping the Honda article (and the Toyota articles and a ton of other stuff) from getting junior-high folks that change the numbers to say a-million-horsepower, and other stupid horseplay. They should not have fought with you, of course... but they stayed within the rules. They're prickly, because they are a wikiCop, and that is a tough job. Anyways, you and I need to focus on the content + facts + sources; after that, the rest is easy-peasy.
- Hang onto the photo-files... we don't need them for proof now, but if you don't mind adding them to wikipedia for other folks to have the freedom to use, they prolly belong over in the ECU article. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
sending private thank-you-messsages
Message added 07:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Purplewowies (talk)
Mike's requests
I don't know what the deal is with Mike's requests - maybe he uses a device that makes it hard for him to format references correctly? I've helped him a few times, and so have a number of others. It seems harmless, but I don't share his love for the aristocracy articles :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, the formatting of the wiki-markup looks like it could be accessibility-related. Actually, one might suspect editing from a tablet/smartphone, where punctuation is sometimes incredibly painful to get to. Anyways, glancing at their edits didn't cause my red-alert-whiskers to twitch any, and clearly they are here in good faith. Did a bit of looking, and as of 2012 baronets are no longer, for the moment at least, under threat of insta-ban-hammer.[67] Still, always best to watch your step in those areas. Mike's interest seems to be more related to ancestry and genealogical stuff, than The Resurgence Of The British Empire To Once Again Rule The High Seas (And Recapture The Thirteen Colonies While We're At It). Still, since you've worked with them before, maybe you could leave them a friendly note that will make them aware to stay careful, keep cool, and avoid at all costs getting involved in any edit-warring, even by accident. Safer to edit the baronet-articles of the 1600s than to edit the Israel-articles of the 1960s, for sure.
- Anyhoo, I wish Mike well, they seem savvy. Isn't there a wikiProject for British Royalty, or something like that? ((Update, there is one, WT:WikiProject_British_Royalty#Inquiries, and they explicitly welcome "todo requests" on their WikiProject talkpage. See especially WP:BARONET subset within WP:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage, as well as [68][69][70][71][72].)) There's nothing wrong with leaving notes on pages of folks they know, but methinks Mike might just be picking somebody at random from the edit-history of the article in question, and often as not, prolly ask for help from some vandal-fighter who habitually ignores any sinebot-assisted messages from anons. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Replied
Hi. I replied on my talkpage on Meta-Wiki. BTW m:Special:AbuseFilter/history/71/diff/536/601 works now, the bug was fixed pretty quickly after I filed it. πr2 (t • c) 15:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Mentorship proposal
This grant proposal seems like it may match with some of your ideas. Of course, you may already know of it, but I only learned of it from Ocaasi's obituary for Jackson Peebles, who died last month :-( Yngvadottir (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear about Jackson, although I did not know of them; any wikipedian lost, is a loss to this world. In some ways you are correct about the match. But there are some crucial points where the proposal diverges from what methinks is absolutely required. Key errors: begging for USD$18k. Before starting any work. Begging for help from WMF, at all. See also, the people who threw millions into VisualEditor. Most crucially, just like the caste-system wikiCulture insists they do, just like all the *existing* failed-to-improve-retention programs, this is yet another scheme where the experienced-important-editcountitis REAL wikipedian, charitably and magnanimously gives their precious time and attention to some basically worthless, totally stupid, clueless groveling
moronmentee. The last factor is the real problem. It means the system cannot be fun. Only some fun-quick-teaming will increase wp:retention, and this proposal is not it. - Rather than join their effort, which will go into the black hole of the WMF, never to return, why don't we instead just steal the best people, steal the best ideas, and build something on a shoestring that will attract enough other developers to finish the work entirely with volunteers, without any of it beholden to WMF politicians and lawyers? :-) p.s. I've never heard of this project, because I don't think the WMF grant-begging boards are anything but a dead-end. That said, anything you run across like this, please let me know, I will be most grateful. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
list of potentially-interesting folks to contact at some point
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Yah, that's why I pinged you about the proposal - I reckoned you had no more heard about it than I had. Afraid I can't lend any assistance with assessing people's possible interest: I try to avoid building profiles of editors in my head for two reasons above all: it's a volunteer project, so people's level of interest, attitudes, and priorities will change even more than otherwise likely; and I believe fervently in the right to on-line anonymity (one of many things on which I disagree with the WMF) so I try hard not to put 2 and 2 together. You may have the best success asking people. However, the WMF aspect is touchy - they regard us as working for them and some folks have no problem with that, while others reasonably enough think some variant of "Right, then! Let's take some of that money they're waving around". (Just as some newbies like mentorship, whereas I just futzed around and asked some silly questions at a help board that seems to no longer exist. Takes all kinds :-)) There are a (to me) surprising number of technically adept Wikipedians who might be happy to help program stuff - the disaffected Kumioko, for one. By the way - I assume you know about Flow, which is hanging over our heads like a sword of Damocles? It will likely muck up everything involving collaboration except for unorchestrated joint editing in mainspace, so it will impact both planning and implementation of the two-person edit blitzes you envision. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Taking the last bit first, I *was* envisioning 2-person buddy-system blitzkrieg. No longer; it proved to be too difficult to explain, in several different ways.
- Yah, that's why I pinged you about the proposal - I reckoned you had no more heard about it than I had. Afraid I can't lend any assistance with assessing people's possible interest: I try to avoid building profiles of editors in my head for two reasons above all: it's a volunteer project, so people's level of interest, attitudes, and priorities will change even more than otherwise likely; and I believe fervently in the right to on-line anonymity (one of many things on which I disagree with the WMF) so I try hard not to put 2 and 2 together. You may have the best success asking people. However, the WMF aspect is touchy - they regard us as working for them and some folks have no problem with that, while others reasonably enough think some variant of "Right, then! Let's take some of that money they're waving around". (Just as some newbies like mentorship, whereas I just futzed around and asked some silly questions at a help board that seems to no longer exist. Takes all kinds :-)) There are a (to me) surprising number of technically adept Wikipedians who might be happy to help program stuff - the disaffected Kumioko, for one. By the way - I assume you know about Flow, which is hanging over our heads like a sword of Damocles? It will likely muck up everything involving collaboration except for unorchestrated joint editing in mainspace, so it will impact both planning and implementation of the two-person edit blitzes you envision. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
fun quick wiki-teaming, based around the metaphor of the space shuttle mission, time-constrained precision-teamwork with assigned-but-rotating roles
|
|---|
|
lonely rivers Flow / to the C / to the C / to the open arms / of the C
|
|---|
|
- Although your point about editor-profiling is well taken, but I'm actually engaged in pure uid-profiling, which is a slight but crucial distinction. I do not assume that User:Stephen is actually named that in real-life, for instance, tho prolly they are. And truth be told, I could care less who they are in real-life, I only care about what they'll do in the wikiverse. Harsh of me. ;-) And yes, I can ask them, but I'll ask them one by one, to not-join the not-a-cabal, as it were. Like wikipedia, it is a temporary anonymous catch-as-catch-can system.
- Some of them will say no, which means yes, in this system of semantics. :-) The really clever ones will say !yes which means not-yes, but in the not-a-cabal not-yes means not-not-yes which means yes. Hence the reason for my question about whether you'd heard of them before... their boolean answers alone, will not tell me whether or not they are interested/interesting. Your mention of the mentorship-thing is directly related. If they are involved in mentorship, that's a good sign, it means they care about retention, and are trying to fix it. But if they *believe* asymmetric mentorship is going to work Some Day, if they fervently *wish* that the WMF would just supply more and more and More Funds, along with more and more and more bureaucratic strings... then they are not going to be on the same page as me, are not going to appreciate the not-a-cabal, and so on.
discussion of the not-goals of the not-a-cabal, and what that means in terms of who will *want* to join, versus who will only *believe* they want to join, and vice versa
|
|---|
There is also the goal-slash-motto, of the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, containing the essential summation of human knowledge, recording the history of Progress, as it happens, neutrally and fairly.
|
- Anyways, what this boils down to is that, #1) we must start doubling editor-counts, and therefore #2) we must focus on what works in practice, but #3) without jettisoning any of the pillars along the way. Because the WMF has proven incapable of implementing a centralized top-down solution that will reverse the trend, despite spending a ton of money *talking* about such things, we can add #4) the solution must be decentralized and bottom-up. And that is about it, I think. The way to improve friendlyism around here is to double and double and double and keep on doubling the number of active editors, until we are over a million people making 5+edits/month. There will be plenty of helping hands to go around... as long as we make *sure* that the growth is mostly composed of people that live by the five pillars! Tough balancing act. Along the same lines, the vandalism-burden and the spam-burden and the promotionalism-burden, and the corresponding risks, will all evaporate in the face of a vast increase in the number of Good Egg editors. Ditto for the AfC backlog, the NPP shorthandedness, and the dearth of RfA successes.
- Retention of 900k Good Egg editors is definitely a silver bullet, for the majority of problems in the wikiverse. Course, any dramatic change like that brings New&Improved problems... wikipedia will be under more pressure than ever to bureacratize, when we go from 30k up to 900k active editors! But if we succumb to that pressure, we'll see the trendline flatten and then start to fall again, with the folks staying around the ones who *enjoy* paperwork... bad! Whereas, if we keep the rules minimal, and editor-liberty maximal, the trendline will still gradually flatten... but will stay monotonically upward-bound. Besides, the problems of having Too Many Good Eggs are vastly preferable to the problem we are soon to face, which is Not Enough Good Eggs To Keep Wikipedia Alive Without Selling Out To SearchEngines/PR/Syndicates/Politicians/Hypercorps.
- p.s. I'm not worried about Flow, it will not even be a factor, methinks; almost all of the programming I'm planning on doing will have to be 'external' wiki-tools rather than 'official' parts of wikipedia, in the short-to-medium-run. If anything, Flow-stuff will *help* the not-a-cabal, by drawing away folks that don't belong in the not-a-cabal. As with the "reimagining mentorship" proposal my goal is to poach away their "best" people (by the not-a-cabal standards outlined above), once I can figure out which ones are matches. As with everything, it will take longer than I wish, but methinks there is a good chance that some portions of the not-a-cabal scheme will be up and running and live next month... whereas I expect that flow and reimagining and whatnot will still be trying to squabble over funds. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi
Hi 74. Nice designing of your talk page. Anyway, you should log in to Wikipedia and become an admin; you would be a really good admin. Best wishes, 50.12.24.16 (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Appreciate the kind words; insert shermanesque statement here, however. I replied over at your talkpage, feel free to respond either which way. :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Add witty-yet-appropriate headline here, as mine went missing
Just wanted to leave you some random wiki-appreciation/wiki-love. Been seeing you a fair bit on some talkpages I stalk, even if I think we've yet to interact. Good job on not letting yourself be scared away by the anti-IP-bias, your willingness to ask questions that ought to be asked, your wise words, such as, but not limited to, those you left on Kudpung's talk page a few days ago and of course your somewhat unique but much appreciated brand of humor. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
trademark policy
Hey 74.192!
Just wanted to let you know I left a bit of a response on the cake question in the lovely translation thread. Thanks again for the smiles and I hope to see you on meta ;) Jalexander--WMF 20:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Tb
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Study
Do you happen to conduct, or are capable of conducting, studies? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- This seems vague. If you're asking whether I can do some test-pilot work, you know, study of flight characteristics, study of strafing-run accuracy patterns, that sort of thing, on the harrier you just purchased on the black market... the answer is definitely yes. :-) But presumably you mean some sort of editor-survey thing, or some sort of programmatically-parsing-wikipedia-metadata thing. I know something about the latter, and User:Liz knows something about the former methinks. What are you thinking of getting done, specifically? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
AN/I notification
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Consensus by exhaustion at Rupert Sheldrake.
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.
This is a warning: Please note that your contributions are disruptive and if they continue on the Rupert Sheldrake page you will face blocking or banning. Please see Tumbleman and Philosophyfellow if you think this isn't serious.
- Thanks for the warning, anonymous person. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Ah.[78] Good to know somebody cares, I guess. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Articles for creation (DUROMAC)
Hey, I made a draft version in Articles for creation, here is a link [79]. please check it. We can still edit and once we done everything, we can send it for review, right?
btw, I know the CEO of DUROMAC, actually, all references I founded is offered by him. So I think these two sources are most useful. hmmm, then what we are going to do the next step?
Hey, please check my articles for creation, I made the final version of DUROMAC. Please help me to check it and tell me what I still need to improve.... thankssssss--Clover1991 (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey, are you busy these days?? Haven't heard anything from you a while!--Clover1991 (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
hey, hello. I don't know why you didn't reply me for a while :(, but I submit my article to AFC already, waiting for review. If you still want to help me, please take a look at here[80].still, thanks a lot!--Clover1991 (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Clover, I'm actually in the middle of a reply to you, in another browser tab, but have not clicked save yet. :-) It's the holidays here, and I've also been busy with work, plus there are some other articles that need help, and some other editors that need help.
- You should not be sad. I still like you. I still want to help you. In fact, part of the reason you are getting less help from me, is that you are on the right pathway already. You do not need as much help from me, because you are starting to figure out how to do it on your own. :-) That is good. But in general, you should expect that wikipedia will be a place where people will help you, and then disappear.
- There is a thing called WP:REQUIRED, which says everybody is here to pursue their own interests. That includes you! It includes me too, of course. Everybody else, as well. For instance, you asked for help over on AGK's page, but never got a reply from them. That is perfectly 100% totally fine. They are busy. They are helping wikipedia. They are, quite frankly, juggling chainsaws balanced on a tightrope. Wikipedia is lucky to have them. And besides, somebody else noticed your message, and helped you. So the system works out, in practice.
- But in general, my goal here is not to help you, every step of the way. My goal here is to point you in the right direction, and then let you choose how best to accomplish you goals, and how best to improve wikipedia. Does this make sense? You are always free to drop in and see if I have time to help, of course. You are also free to drop in and see how I am doing, or see if I need help with anything.
- As a matter of fact, I am trying to work with somebody right now who speaks Tamil, and if you would like to assist me with that, while we wait for your article to get through the AfC queue, that might be fun for you. But this is not WP:REQUIRED, it is totally up to you. I won't be offended if you are busy, or if you would rather do something else, or anything like that. It would be nice of you to say so, of course, just a quick 'sorry I am busy elsewhere' is more than enough... but even that is never required.
- Perhaps the key point is this. Wikipedia is for the ages: there is no WP:DEADLINE, partly because it is such a gigantic project (we don't want to rush the job and botch everything), and partly to keep stress levels low (we don't want people to burn out). Now, the downside here, is that obviously wikipedia sometimes seems slow, as slow as molasses in the coldest winter. You are not the only one who wishes things would happen quicker! There are a lot of projects where I get frustrated, because I want instant gratification, but I don't usually get it, because Wikipedia takes time. The good thing, is that wikipedia is well-suited to letting me work on something else, while I wait for the thing I wish was going faster. :-) So the bad news is, I have not made time for further work on Duromac yet, but the good news is, there is still plenty of time. Even better, you are starting to understand how things work around here, and soon, you will be an expert, so even if I never find time, Duromac will be a success, and wikipedia will be better for it.
- I'll try and pay Duromac a visit in the near future, if I can, but if I cannot, somebody else will appear to help -- perhaps David or Julie or Anne or one of the other AfC reviewers -- or perhaps Tim or Acro or someone who helped you in the past -- or perhaps an entirely new person. As always, thanks for improving wikipedia, and thanks especially for your friendly attitude, it is much appreciated. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
DUROMAC HAS BEEN DELETED AGAIN!
hey, I'd really want to help you with another article, but I am really sad right now, coz my article has been deleted again in AFC. they said the product section seems like advertising. I really have no idea what I need to improve. Maybe I delete the whole product section? Or you have better suggestion?? Please, help me. see the link here [81]--Clover1991 (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Don't panic! :-) Duromac is not deleted, the "decline" just means not yet because there is still work to be done. This is a learning process. Take heart, Clover. Declined with a constructive comment is good. We just fix the problem, and then resubmit. Sooner or later, we will get to the heart of the matter, I promise. There is an old saying, Rome wasn't built in a day. :-) Take a deep breath. Relax.
- Now. What is the thing that they said? "Reads more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." And they are correct, it is more like an advertisement, than a wikipedia entry yet. Too much of the article is not neutral, not sourced. In particular, TKK said to look at the list of products. Well... look at them. What do you see? No sources! No citations! Is that neutral? Does the product-line satisfy WP:NOTEWORTHY? Maybe not.
- So maybe we should minimize it, or just take the list out. But then... but then... how will the readers know about all the great things that Duromac does? That is an improper question. Wikipedia is not the place to talk about all the great things Duromac does -- the duromac.com homepage does that job, quite well. Wikipedia has to be just the facts, has to stay neutral.
- This is hard for you, to write in a neutral tone. Why? Easy! Because you are proud of Duromac. It is hard for *you* personally to write in a neutral tone. But wikipedia must be neutral -- that is pillar number two. So what to do? Well, you need to ask for help. Somebody else, to write up the article, and stay neutral. Somebody who finds it *easy* to stay neutral.
- Maybe I can help you, but I'm still busy at the moment, there is an ArbCom case and an ArbCom election right now. So why don't we ask Tikuko? I will put a message on their talkpage. Many of the AfC reviewers like Tikuko are busy, but they also like helping people, otherwise they would pick another job. If not them, we will find someone. Slow and steady, wins the race. Persistence. Grace. Steady as she goes. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I got your point. I also leave a message on TTK's page, hopefully he has time to help me. I also leave message on Wikipedia article of creation help desk. I hope some one can help me. I really appreciate you help me a lot! since I am a new here, I am really lost in Wikipedia. Thank you!!--Clover1991 (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw your message to TTK, it was good. My main message to *you* is, that you can probably learn to help yourself, if you can train yourself to write neutrally, just the facts, stick to the strongly to the sources. Over on the left, there is a community-portal link. In this case, you are looking for help with fixing up your AfC submission. You can post a question at WP:TEAHOUSE every couple of days, to see if folks have time to help you with specific questions. But probably the best thing you can do, is look at *successful* articles about companies, that were just approved from the AfC queue.
- Here is the list -- Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/recent -- you can see DigSin and Middlesex Water Company in the list. You can also click on the 'view history' link at the top, and look back to previous articles. That will give you a rough idea of what is acceptable, but more importantly, what you do not see there, is probably stuff that was usually unacceptable. Learn by example. Of course, there are many companies in wikipedia now, that might be useful to look at, such as Toronto_Works_and_Emergency_Services and maybe even Zoomlion, but these are actually *less* useful of a guide, because they may not have been as-recently checked over.
- I will drop in when I can spare a bit of time. You can reply to TTK's comment in the AfC queue, and you should explain there that because you know the CEO, you are having trouble with keeping a neutral tone. You can also list our other sources there, the ones we have not put into the article, so people trying to help you will have a quick way to get going. Thanks for improving wikipedia, keep striving, let me know if you get stuck. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Talk back
Hello, I reply you on my talk page, please check it, thanks :))))--Clover1991 (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Talk back
hey, You have a talk back on my talk page, please check it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clover1991 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Talk Back
hey, You have a talk back on my talk page, please check it!--Clover1991 (talk) 07:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 15:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Well not exactly for you, but I thought you might like a new challenge! Fiddle Faddle 15:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- That is either very inviting, or very forboding. :-) Guess I better find out which. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Finally
I have an infobox on my user page, with one of your great ideas ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, now that is hilarious.[82] I don't really mind so much when one person gets topic-banned, and at least theoretically I can see how infoboxen could be disruptive. People have strong feelings about how stuff *looks* here on wikipedia, which to me is pointless, what matters is whether it is *correct* info, and the laid-out-optimally-for-informing-readers stuff is always going to be subjective and fuzzy, because different readers find different kinds of layout optimal.
- The worrisome part is the "editing-by-telepathic-proxy ban" upon all *other* editors. If they visit some music-related article, and think to themselves, hey, there should be an infoboxen for this... BAN-HAMMER FALLS. (Which is totally nuts.) Anyhoo, apparently there is a problem with telepathy-like phenomena elsewhere, so I gotta go. Take it easy Gerda, and keep your infoboxen in their quiver. p.s. Since I may one day wish to add an infoboxen to some page, perhaps even my very own userpage, if it were editable, I will be shortly be deleting this evidence that we ever spoke. :-) Siggggghhhhhh. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- p.s. Just today I discovered that there were some similar editing-by-telepathic-proxy bans related to metrication, and rumor has it similar things happened with cold fusion, back in the day. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- I like to be hilarious, and - as pointed out many times before - having written on Kafka (did you try the link in the box?) helped to take some absurdities. I entered a battleground and knew it, but does it make me a warrior? I never requested that all articles have an infobox, only that all would be more informative with one. I never added one where I thought it would not be wanted, sometimes I noticed that I was wrong. Did you see the Planyavsky case, with a diff making it to the support for a ban? I asked all arb candidates what they saw there. (Click on "vote" in the box.) Some didn't (dare to?) look. One said what you see if you don't look deeper. ALL the others got it right! There's hope for the next group. The case (shortened only a bit):
- I add an infobox to "my" article.
- It's reverted.
- I improve it and return it.
- It's reverted.
- A friend restores it.
- It's collapsed at the end of the article.
- Andy uncollapses it and puts it in the normal position.
- I like to be hilarious, and - as pointed out many times before - having written on Kafka (did you try the link in the box?) helped to take some absurdities. I entered a battleground and knew it, but does it make me a warrior? I never requested that all articles have an infobox, only that all would be more informative with one. I never added one where I thought it would not be wanted, sometimes I noticed that I was wrong. Did you see the Planyavsky case, with a diff making it to the support for a ban? I asked all arb candidates what they saw there. (Click on "vote" in the box.) Some didn't (dare to?) look. One said what you see if you don't look deeper. ALL the others got it right! There's hope for the next group. The case (shortened only a bit):
- Who needs to be banned? Andy, of course. So said one arb in his vote to ban ("concerns me deeply"), and none of the colleagues questioned it. - Andy wrote a new article, and someone who dares to give a journalist an infobox is needed, - that's not proxy, that's improving Wikipedia, I started on the talk. - And to finish the case story: the uncollapsing ended the dispute. See also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- "I entered a battleground and knew it, but does it make me a warrior" This is the key question. Recently, I entered a battleground, and did not know it. But I found out within a couple days! And stayed to fix the problem: there should not be battlegrounds on wikipedia. Now, as you can see below, it seems most likely that either I will become a notorious wikiCriminal like you, or someone else will (we have two such folks already in the mix).
- Fundamentally, what ought to happen in the case I am entangled in, is that ArbCom should ban nobody. If they will clarify that WP:NPOV does not equal WP:SPOV, that wikipedians must reflect the WP:RS rather than rewrite/elide them, and that deleting something Reliably Sourced just because it is Not True is actually the wrong way to help the readership... well then, that should be enough. Our battleground is entirely hinging on whether individual editors can pick and choose amongst the sources, not just for WP:MEDRS claims, but for *any* claim in *any* field of inquiry, including bare demographical facts. There may be some folks who are unwilling to accept that, but ArbCom should not have to pre-emptively ban them.
- The alternative, is that ArbCom should explicitly rule that WP:NPOV in fact *does* equal WP:SPOV, and furthermore, that WP:FRINGE applies to *every* field of inquiry, not just scientific claims, and that WP:RS and WP:MEDRS *should* be identical. This will result in a rewrite-slash-delete of most religious articles from the atheist POV, and a rewrite-slash-delete of all the articles on questionable science, and a gutting of the history of philosophy, history of science, and history of culture. Giant piles of pop-culture, pokemon and teevee especially, would fall to the deletionists as "not serious enough and not scientific enough to be WP:MAINSTREAM". Magic The Gathering, and also AD&D, would likely be kept, interestingly enough.
- Tons of people would leave wikipedia, if it were to become truth-o-pedia. But truth be told, I personally would probably not. It would be *strange* to give special privilege ("the only WP:RS are the opinions of these people") to mainstream-research-scientists working in traditional academic careers at mainstream-research-universities. But that is what JPS would like to have happen, methinks, not just in science-topics, but in *all* topics. The articles on religion, politics, and so on... would slowly and gradually (but in the end drastically) be changed. Wikipedia would arguably be *much* closer to being a good guide to the truth. I would stay, and help; I have often wished this were truth-o-pedia. But the trouble is, I'm not sure the readership would stay, because besides loving the pokemon and the teevee crap, they also believe wikipedia is fair. Truth-o-pedia would be relentlessly unfair ("the truth hurts" as the saying goes), and there would be a constant battle to lock it down, censor non-mainstream-science views, ban the "fairness warriors", and so on... just like on the Sheldrake page, today, which is the worst battleground I've seen, but probably not the Worst.Battleground.Evah.
- Anyhoo, coming back to your infoboxen thing, I see *two* possibilities in your list. First possibility, the one your arbcom poll supports, is the possibility that Andy was acting in good faith, and that the editing was a collaboration-in-mainspace, with different viewpoints constructively ironing out their differences, to end up with a final product that everybody was happy with. THAT IS *EXACTLY* HOW WIKIPEDIA *OUGHT* TO WORK. (dammit I say!) Rrrrrr. Where is bishzilla, to destroy Tokyo, when I need it? :-) But the other interpretation, of the exact same list of edits, goes like this.
- The notorious wikiCriminal Gerda, jealous of the good citizens of ArticleTown, decides to take over. First she attacks from the left flank. Reverted! War is on! Insidiously, she doubles back, then attacks from the *right* flank. Reverted again, yay, the valiant wikiCitizens say huzzah! But now Gerda is angry. Very angry indeed. She calls on her wikiGang, sending secret emails across the land. Frontal blitzkrieg! Her so-called "friend" strikes, using the powers of evil to revert the righteous reverts of the good wikiCitizens. They are not warriors, they are just simple wikiFauna defending their homes, they cannot face the brutal wikiGang. But perhaps they can contain it -- they put the evil infestation into wikiJail, and demote it to the worst ghetto in ArticleTown. Oh woe! Backstabber! The notorious wikiCriminal Gerda was ready for them. Bribing the wikiCops, she has infiltrated the wikiJail, and sent her chief provocateur Andy The Terrible to shoot good the wikiFauna in the back. He crushes all in his path, desecrates their artwork, and forces The Will Of Gerda on the exhausted cowering wikiCitizens. Where shall they seek wikiJustice? Who shalt dare ban Andy The Terrible? Will the wikiCriminal Gerda never be stopped???
- We have the exact same problem on the Sheldrake page. Currently, in fact, there is a battle to rewrite the rules of what it means to edit-war. Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring#Definition_of_.22Revert.22_and_.22Undo.22. Anyways, I think you are the most cuddly friendly wikiCriminal, and hope to one day see you free to place infoboxen as you see fit. That said, there *is* a problem with tag-team editing, and with POV. Your POV, that readers often benefit from infoboxen, is relatively harmless. That some people get so *angry* about it, well, that is not your fault. Look over at the talkpage for the manual of style. They tear each other to shreds over emdash comma endash distended-partial-semicolon-whatevers. Does that improve wikipedia? Maybe. I guess. But it seems borderline. But there are some topics, which are controversial in the Real Universe, and not just controversial in the wikiverse. Infoboxen and MOS battles are small potatoe (as Dan Quayle might say). Serious battles are being fought in the pages related to nationlism, medicine, political BLPs, economics, and protoscience-aka-pseudoscience. They are not usually more vicious than the infoboxen wars... but they are longer-lasting. It is a discouraging thing. Still, your good attitude cheers me. Thanks for improving wikipedia, see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Who needs to be banned? Andy, of course. So said one arb in his vote to ban ("concerns me deeply"), and none of the colleagues questioned it. - Andy wrote a new article, and someone who dares to give a journalist an infobox is needed, - that's not proxy, that's improving Wikipedia, I started on the talk. - And to finish the case story: the uncollapsing ended the dispute. See also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration Request Notification
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askahrc (talk • contribs) 19:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm notifying everyone to whom this Arb's request applies. Please consider responding.
Best,
David in DC (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
engine data: where is the fuzzy wikipedia/wikiversity/fansite line
What data belongs in wikipedia? What data belongs in wikiversity, in the automotive engineering textbook for designers, and in the automotive repair manuals for mechanics? What data will always be fansite stuff? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
automotive specs: what does WP:RS mean, if the industry only *sells* the detailed info?
What data can we gather from WP:CALC? What data can we gather under fair use? What data can we gather under the Feist decision? What data can we gather without violating WP:OR? Can we sometimes use online stores as a backup-justification? Don't libraries have Haynes and Chilton manuals? Isn't there at least *one* wikipedian who works at a dealership, and thus has access to the official published manuals? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
... may appeal to your sense of the absurd. Or the sense of surd (as it was defined in my schooldays, at least). Fiddle Faddle 00:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree
I have assumed he was around but didn't want to be seen casting accusations without evidence. The problem is that there are so many "little me" minions around that whether real or sock does not make much difference. In the end, the atmosphere is as poison as ever.
I think you and I probably agree in principle. There is faith-based thinking at all levels, but we still must encourage thinking. In my field, there are people who believe without objective reason, which dilutes the good efforts of others to determine if these phenomena are more than imagination. The task is to support exploration of new ideas without unduly assigning veracity. To me, the entire pseudoscience and skeptic vs. "believer" polarity in Wikipedia simply suppresses free thought and pisses off a lot of people who would rather be supporting Wikipedia.
Keep trying. Tom Butler (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- The funny thing is, prolly you and I would *not* agree in principle! :-) But feel free to give me a try, if you wish. I do disagree that faith-based-thinking is, linguistically speaking, truthiness. The very meaning of "faith-based" requires that one shut *off* thinking, about whatever claim/idea/phenomenon it is that one is taking on faith. Now, obviously, there are times when humans for pragmatic reasons have to act, getting the right answers, even when going on too little data. If the bad guys are chasing me, and I can either turn left down the dark alley, with the end concealed in shadows, or turn right down the major street, with a lively noontime circus visible at the end, I'll go with my gut and head for the circus. Now, at least theoretically, there could be a police station deep in the shadows, and the circus-folks could be brain-eating-zombies. But I don't have time for deep analysis, and empirical experiments, the bad guys are right behind me. Wikipedia is not much like that hypothetical scenario, needless to say, at least in my mind. Wikipedia is long-term.
- As for the other thing, well, I'd never heard of Josh, the Sheldrake BLP is my first fringe article, and until this year I've always stuck to mainspace, never policy-pages. I've editing "minority view" stuff before, if you count Occupy Wall Street versus Stormfront versus American Socialists versus Objectivist Party versus Justice Party versus Boston T.E.A. Party ... *none* of which are WP:FRINGE, since that *only* applies to science, never to politics. There are plenty of politicians that make wacky claims about science-kinda-sorta, from Al Gore inventing the internet to John McCain inventing the Blackberry PDA. But nobody tries to blackball their BLP-pages for *that* stuff ... they just try to blackball them for their religion, or for their stance on affirmative action, or for their vote in the bailouts, or for their alleged adultery, or for sapping the Purity of Our Essences, or whatever political football is handy.
some musings about how a simple disagreement about the meaning of NPOV, the second damn pillar(!) of all, can lead to horrendous basket-case battleground articles
|
|---|
|
- Maybe it will come to pass that ArbCom will 'break the back of the dispute' by banning everybody that disagrees with ScienceApologist's old WP:SPOV, or vice versa. But neither one would help, the cause of the battleground would still remain. The only thing that will help, from what I can grok, is if ArbCom explicitly rules that WP:RS applies everywhere except WP:MEDRS medical claims, and that WP:FRINGE applies nowhere except in terms of biology/chemistry/physics/cosmology claims (and that editors cannot be the final judges of generally-considered-pseudoscience-versus-questionable-science but must let *sources* be their guide), plus most importantly that WP:NPOV is *not* WP:SPOV/WP:MAINSTREAM/WP:SkePOV, ever... even when WP:MEDRS applies, even when WP:FRINGE_OBVIOUS_PSEUDOSCIENCE applies. I'm currently trying to get up the gumption to explain to some WP:FTN person why they cannot exclude all sources in arabic as "not *really* reliable-aka-true" and therefore somehow 'prove' that Islam is a bullshit religion.
- But not today. Instead, I have a large collection of tinfoil to eat. Mhhmmmm, yummy! :-) Anyhoo, apologies again for my TLDR part in making you unhappy with wikipedia. As you can see, I've learned, but not learned enough! :-/ I hope someday you return, for more than just AhrbCohm Drahmahz. Take it easy, Tom. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Precious
IP tales
Thank you for quality imaginative contributions to articles and discussions, with insight, background knowledge, a vision and the gift to tell tales, and with edit summaries adding to the reading pleasure, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
2013-12-01 RFAR, statement by 74, concerning Rupert Sheldrake
Placeholder, to be filled in with answers for Carcharoth and the other ArbCom folks ASAP, and within 48 hours at the outside. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Whittled to 995, abandoned grammar to hit 500. Sorry.
Tons of issues here. Most nonArbCom. Bullying? AE. Removal of RSed-materials? 2010. Pillar four violations? Find admin, try DRN, take cold shower! Content disputes? Tons, despite Barney's assertion. Ninja-reversion the norm, or just-short-of-war gradually reversion of meaning. Not ArbCom's place.
One fundamental reason, underlies *repeated* anti-pillar-four flareups (couple instances only of borderline-bullying — most just grudges after *repeated* problems and *ongoing* situation-frustration). Frustration caused by misunderstanding of meaning of NPOV. Subtle, but causes all other Sheldrake-difficulties.
Long-running dispute, jps-aka-QTxV-fka-ScienceApologist and Iantresman oh-so-politely warring since ~2004. Break the back best accomplished by *very* brief ArbCom ruling on meaning of first sentence, and on whether WP:MAINSTREAM/WP:SPOV/WP:SkePOV are indistinguishable from NPOV. No such thing as a SkePOV, says Vzaak, TRPoD, Barney, jps, JzG, plus prolly also Mangoe etc; core dispute is meaning of NPOV.
To wit, equating SPOV===NPOV, permits RSes ... or *portions* of specific RSes ... elided from mainspace, with supported-sentences. Only currently true: Medicinal Claims, added by jps.[83] Controversial then; necessary evil, nowadays. But MEDRS ought never apply outside strict limits of clinical claims, FRINGE ought never apply outside strict limits of scientific theories.
Sheldrake phytomorphology? Alternative-or-questionable. Sheldrake telepathy-like subquantum fields, as a physics (not spiritual) theory? Generally-considered-pseudoscience... maaaaybe protoscience. Sheldrake a 'biologist'? Other sources say pseudoscientist! Describe the conflict, never decide it. Cf celeb birthyear. We follow RS, never our own logic. Sheldrake philosophy-of-science? politics-of-science? spirituality, consciousness-not-cogsci, non-science-related-musings? No FRINGE, no MEDRS.
If that's not the meaning of UNDUE and NPOV, then I will be delighted to start writing articles for truth-o-pedia, banning illogical/irrational. I'll join the crusade, save poor readers from themselves, right alongside Josh et al. But... I don't believe that's what NPOV says.
 | This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it. |
Some say CHERRYPICKING and EDITORIALIZING in the name of Holy Mainstream Science, even driving away some who disagree, is peachy. Following spirit of pillar five to the hilt, ignore rules that prevent improving wikipedia. But they're fundamentally mistaken: extreme scepticism is a "side" in the policy-sense. Militant scepticism *is* disruptive, in the essay-sense. So long as folks believe WP:SPOV isn't a failed essay, but rather is identical to non-negotiable pillar two... battlegrounds will recur.
I ask ArbCom to accept RFAR. 2013/2010/2007 decisions, often same exact editors, always involving same generally-problematic topics, won't end until it's firmly settled: whether NPOV===SPOV, or not. Even just ArbCom commenting...
- FRINGE only applies to hard-science-claims, not to philosophy-claims, nor other fields of inquiry
- MEDRS only applies to medical-efficacy-claims, never to job-credentials, etc
- WP:MAINSTREAM does not equate to, and cannot trump, NPOV
...that alone could break the back, even 'non-binding'. HTH; thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
p.s. Although I am a named party in the dispute, due to my pariah status as a low-caste anon, I cannot post my statement here,[84] as the ArbCom page is protected against my kind. Define irony; so is Rupert Sheldrake.
extraneous commentary, outside 'official' statement
p.p.s. ((And yes... I realize that the large number of declines, with advice to wait a few more weeks or months, makes it likely that ArbCom will not be taking my advice, and considering the case. I do not insist that the matter remain open for the 48 hours I will need; I can make my statement here either way. Still, given that the problem has been ongoing since at least August, which is four months of battleground behavior, and the accusations of bias in this specific BLP article have made WP:RS news at least three times during November... additional months are a bad idea.))
Talkback
Message added 14:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Stefan2 (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- This is actually at the school talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Talk Back
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Clover1991 (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Talk Back
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Clover1991 (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 04:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Drmies (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
| Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you4711!!!!Me, the eighth user in the category???Surprise! Hafspajen (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC) |
4711! Please, get yourself an username! See, what happens otherwise! (You can always ask an admin to transfer your userpage to the new address! - if you don't want to lose your old friends... ) Hafspajen (talk) 09:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
.
- Now, just look what this crazy bot is doing.... I have automatically detected that your edit to Sarong may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. (this is actually a a vandalism edit) see that message the last one down, it looks like the bot agrees with this edit. I like it a lot Thanks, BracketBot... Hafspajen (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Now the interesting thing is, the very same IP-address was vandal-fighting the last time the were here, back in May.[85] Some cox-cable-modem address in the great plains of north america. Not sure why they like sarongs. :-) Nor why they seem to change personalities; big sibling and little sibling, maybe? — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Off-topic comment prompted by the word "sarong". I'd like to meet the idiot who thought we needed a TV remake of "The Sound of Music" featuring, I kid you not, Carrie Underwood as Maria.
- Ten non-reedeemable, non-transferrable points to you if you can figure out how my twisted mind got from "Sarong" to "The Sound of Music." David in DC (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- [86] + [87] = 10pts? Assuming that the Smothers Brothers aren't involved this time around. :-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sarong, farewell, auf veidersehn, adeiu. You got it. David in DC (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- [86] + [87] = 10pts? Assuming that the Smothers Brothers aren't involved this time around. :-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Now the interesting thing is, the very same IP-address was vandal-fighting the last time the were here, back in May.[85] Some cox-cable-modem address in the great plains of north america. Not sure why they like sarongs. :-) Nor why they seem to change personalities; big sibling and little sibling, maybe? — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
TLDR statement
Here is the kiloword version of the official statement shown above.
no peeking
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Original 999-word draft. There are a ton of issues here. Most of them are not for ArbCom. Was there bullying? See AE, fair enough. Was there removal of Reliable Sourced materials? See the decision in 2010, fair enough. Was there a violation of pillar four? Talk to an admin, take it to dispute resolution, or just step away and take a cold shower until your temper is more sanguine. Fair enough. Content disputes? Tons of them, despite Barney's assertion that only the first paragraph is a problem. Ninja-reverted whenever they get put in, or simply just-short-of-war-reverted by editing the changes back out of existence. But again, this is not ArbCom's place. My assertion is that there is a fundamental reason which underlies the *repeated* flare-up of anti-pillar-four behavior, which a few folks have interpreted as bullying (I agree in only one or two cases -- most of the rest are just grudges forming after *repeated* problems and more importantly *ongoing* frustration with the whole situation). The ongoing frustration is, I submit, caused by a misunderstanding of the meaning of pillar two, the only non-negotiable rule of wikipedia -- not counting pillar five. This is a deep and subtle misunderstanding, but to my eyes, it causes all the other difficulties and disputes. If we want to break the back of this long-running dispute (jps-aka-QTxV-fka-ScienceApologist and Iantresman have been oh-so-politely warring since at least 2004 on related topic-areas by my calculations), then what we need is a very brief ArbCom ruling on the meaning of the first sentence of WP:NPOV, and on whether WP:MAINSTREAM and/or WP:SPOV and/or the long grass of extreme scepticism -- which was a phrase coined as part of the Sheldrake BLP fiasco -- are in fact indistinguishable from WP:NPOV. There are many editors who believe, very deeply, that there is no such thing as a skeptic point of view. The ones who have said as much to me, personally, include Vzaak, TRPoD, Barney, jps, and Guy-aka-JzG, plus although they have not stated this explicitly, from reviewing their edit-history related to Hapsgood (another 'mad scientist' similar to Sheldrake) I'm willing to believe Mangoe is also in that camp. I'm not sure about some of the others, not named in this dispute... but the core dispute is over the meaning of pillar two. In particular, the idea behind equating WP:SPOV with WP:NPOV, is that specific Reliable Sources ... or indeed even *portions* of specific Reliable Sources ... can be elided from mainspace, along with the sentences they support. There is only one area of wikipedia where that is *currently* true, and that is the area of Claims Involving Medicine, see the final sentence of this diff added by jps.[88] Even at the time it was controversial to User:DGG. I see it as a necessary evil. But WP:MEDRS should never apply outside the strict limits of medical claims, and WP:FRINGE should never apply out of the strict limits of hard-science theories. Sheldrake has an alternative-minority-or-maybe-questionable-science view of phytomorphology. He has a generally-considered-pseudoscience-view of a certain aspect of physics, his telepathy-like subquantum morphic fields. But that does not mean wikipedia cannot call him a biologist. That some sources describe him as a psuedoscientist, there is not a shred of doubt. But wikipedia must describe the conflict, not decide the conflict. See the question of the correct birthyear of Mariah Carey. We follow the sources, never our own logic. If that is not the meaning of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, then I will be delighted to start writing articles for truth-o-pedia, banning any editor who is ever illogical or irrational. I too will join the crusade to WP:RGW, and save the poor readers from themselves, right alongside Josh et al. But I do not believe that is what WP:NPOV actually says.
Some folks believe that WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:EDITORIALIZING in the name of Holy Mainstream Science, even if they have to drive away some editors who disagree along the way, is fine. They are following the spirit of pillar five to the hilt, and ignoring any rules that prevent them from improving the encyclopedia. But they are fundamentally mistaken: extreme scepticism *is* actually a "side" in the WP:NPOV policy-sense. Militant scepticism *is* disruptive, in the WP:TE guideline-sense. As long as they believe that WP:SPOV is not a failed essay, but rather is identical to pillar two, the non-negotiable pillar... the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior will continue. I ask that ArbCom reverse their declines, and take the case. The rulings from 2013, and from 2010, and from 2007, often involving the same exact editors, and always involving the same generally-problematic topics, will not end until the NPOV===SPOV dispute is firmly settled. Truth be told, even if ArbCom folks were to comment that "WP:FRINGE only applies to hard-science-claims, not to philosophy-claims or other fields of inquiry, and WP:MEDRS only applies to medical-efficacy-claims, never to job-credentials, and WP:SPOV and WP:MAINSTREAM do not equate to and do not trump WP:NPOV".... maybe that alone would break the back of the dispute, even if it were 'non-binding' in ArbEnforcement terms. Hope this helps; thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC) p.s. Although I am a named party in the dispute, due to my pariah status as a low-caste anon, I cannot post my statement here,[89] as the ArbCom page is protected against my kind. Define irony; so is Rupert Sheldrake. |
Association of Youth Organizations Nepal
Thanks for your note to me.
1. If I remember correctly, I only fixed one link in that big table under "Member organisations". [Personally, I hate dead links, especially on a site such as Wiki, which should be current. :-]
2. I completely agree with the person who removed all of the links--"we are not the yellow pages - do we not have articles for ANY of these". An item in that big table should first link to a Wiki article; the Wiki article, in turn, can contain a link to the external site.
3. Regarding your offer
- There is an outside place called http://DMOZ.org which is sometimes used to store URLs like that. I explain how it works below...
- Talk:Association_of_Youth_Organizations_Nepal#directory_of_website_links
- I'm happy to help you get it all done, if you like.
I was just passing through the article "Association of Youth Organizations Nepal" and fixed one link along the way. :-) Somebody who is more intimately associated with AYON or even Nepal can handle reinstating the deleted links on DMOZ.
Personally, I think the correct approach is . . . slowly start to link items in the big table to any existing Wiki articles or, if viable, start new articles for items in the big table.
Nice chatting with you. Bye —94.113.34.74 (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
On Imagine
Thanks. You got it precisely right. How did you do that when either nobody else could or was willing to admit it? I thought it was pretty straightforward what had happened, especially when I said so, but apparently the fact that human beings make human mistakes is not a fact widely accepted. Also thanks for the essay - Wikipedia is full of surprising little gems like that. Cheers! --Pete (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
You shower gems upon me. In recognition of your thoughtful advice, I have arranged for a tree to be planted in your name number in a remote communal farming village on the Tibetan high steppe. Your day to water it is Tuesday. --Pete (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Jetpack. Sweden's own 4711. No problemo. :-) p.s. Philosophically, IBAN seemed like a stupid thing, when I first heard about it. I'm not so sure anymore, though; the basic premise of wikipedia is that this should be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, right? And any person in the world, no matter how perfect, is gonna rub at least *one* somebody-else wrong. Not to mention, nobody is perfect. So I have come to see them as a necessary evil. However, I think having admins impose them is wrong... they should just be unilateral and/or mutually-agreed-upon individual choices by individual editors. Be that as it may, good luck with your editing, thanks for improving wikipedia, and stick to pillar four like a rock. See you around. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Request for arbitration rejected
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. The arbitrators felt that the already imposed discretionary sanctions were adequate to deal with current issues. Failure by users to edit constructively or comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should be brought up at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for further potential suggestions on moving forward.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if we cannot get the dozen-or-so arbs to look at this, maybe we can get some uninvolved editors involved, if we can find folks that are ready and willing.
2013q2 Nutshell: scientist famous for writing half-a-dozen books about animals / parapsychology / telepathy / cognition. (Basically correct; could use more depth, and a broader context.)
comparison of the first paragraph, back before the arrival of FTN folks
|
|---|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=579774336&oldid=548237850 April 2013, when IrWolfie first arrived... not named in the current complaint because he is one of the WP:FTN crew who is now banned
July 2013, after one line of mild puffery was added... though Sheldrake *does* still lecture on crop axions from time to time, I've heard on the talkpage
|
2013q4 Nutshell: pop-culture parapsychologist, once was a 'researcher' back in the 1960s and 1970s, now says termites are telepathic && all science is bull, his stench offends all true scientists but he still somehow suckers the ignorant public. (*Also* basically correct... albeit now slanted heavily towards WP:SPOV at the expense of all else... BBC included... again, wider context is *still* needed, and although depth has been achieved, it was achieved by jettisoning NPOV and is borderline to violating BLP, plus of course regularly violates BLPTALK. Furthermore, WP:BATTLEGROUND has settled in for the long haul, and arbcom refusing the case more or less guarantees long-term grudges. Maybe they will be minimized if we act quickly to bring in a couple dozen uninvolved editors, but I'm not too hopeful anymore.)
comparison of the first paragraph, just before the declined arbcom case, and more recently
|
|---|
midnight on halloween of 2013, after my first week of failing to fix the WP:SPOV nature of the new&improved prose
The 'much improved' version that Josh is proud of
|
By my tally, from October 31st to November 31st, exactly one thing was fixed in the mainspace lede (albeit partially and ever so slightly -- *any* move in the direction of neutrality is a win nowadays), and two new things were broken. The additions are not untrue, nor are they unsourced; they belong in the article, though perhaps not in the cherrypicked and wikipedian-driven-editorializing phrasing we see here, which is not neutral by a good stretch. But in the lead? Sheesh. Some of *the* most important things about Sheldrake, are that he has a new book where he plays the philosophical-skeptic, to the anger of scientists-skeptical-about-pseudoscience everywhere? And that he is friends with Chopra, another arch-enemy of those same woo-fighters, in a different context? Sigh. This article is a basket-case, and the talkpage is an even bigger basket case.
There is a real-life battleground, the TEDx talks of early 2013, which led most of the folks here... and now, *this* wp:battleground BLP page has itself become a Notable real-life phenomenon, with in-depth coverage in multiple Reliable Sources, hurting wikipedia's credibility in the BBC, and in the New Republic, and so on. We already have enough real-life bad press about declining number of admins and declining number of active editors. These phenomena are not unrelated; tendentious battlegrounds are one of the things that drive people away! 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- True words, all those above. I am particularly amused/disheartened by the unwillingness to call Conservation of Energy anything but a "fact", when the whole world calls it a "principle" or "law". The difference between "facts" and "principles or laws" is pretty important. But then, I'm no scientist, or even a former scientist.
- BTW, I don't know how to access the BBC or New Republic things, both of which I'd like to look at. And feel free to delete all this if it gets in the way. Lou Sander (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hey Lou, pleasure to see you again, but remember, the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" should NOT be taken literally, it is just a metaphor nowadays, what are you, some kinda old-school? Coyne is here -- http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115533/rupert-sheldrake-fools-bbc-deepak-chopra -- and he gives a pointer to the online copy of the BBC-world-svc-radio-interview with Sheldrake including timestamps which was on-air Nov 5th and archived here -- http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01kb0bg -- Coyne says minutes 8 thru 13 are the Sheldrake interview by BBC interviewer Dan Damon.
- WHICH AS EVERYONE KNOWS, apparantly, is really just a Sheldrake-fanboi in BBC-clothing, because as Coyne goes to some pain to point out, over in Damon's personal blog on typepad, he self-identifies as a "keen churchgoer" at some point. Keen. Church. Goer. Kid you not! THE BBC IS KILLING SCIENCE and this known churchgoer was actual *permitted* to interview Sheldrake himself, the mad scientist devil, On. The. Radio. Where. Gullible. Stupid. Citizens. Might. Listen. WITHOUT CLUBBING HIM! Offended, I tell you, I am mortally offended that this travesty of justice should occur, that Coyne, a REAL scientist is relegated to the New Republic peer-reviewed top-decile-impact-indicator journal of phytomorphology, but nnnooooooooo, SHELDRAKE is the one the BBC calls, why why WHYYYYY! p.s. Use of the word 'scientist' in describing Sheldrake previously was *entirely* accidental, he is a *former* biologist with a *former* PhD, who was never even a Fellow of the Royal Society that was a damn RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP and it is over, over and done with I tell you, live in the now, live in the now! The editors of New Republic sincerely regret the error.
- The whole article reads like that. Coyne is apparently a U.Chicago prof, and just like Maddox, he totally loses his cool. In public, in a Reliable Source, no less. Exactly as Sheldrake would have hoped... and I suspect, exactly as Sheldrake planned from the beginning, though perhaps he did not predict Coyne specifically. Sigh; wikipedia is being played. I don't believe that vzaak and barney and the others are engaged in a conspiracy to blast Sheldrake, they just came here because of the TEDx fallout, like many of the "Sheldrake-fanbois" who seem to be incredibly numerous and include David_in_DC and myself and Liz and of course *you* Lou, naughty naughty.
- BTW, I don't know how to access the BBC or New Republic things, both of which I'd like to look at. And feel free to delete all this if it gets in the way. Lou Sander (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
on the odd similarities between the new song by Lady not-THAT-famous Gaga, and the new book by Rupert not-REALLY-a-scientist Sheldrake
|
|---|
|
- Ignore my moaning and groaning, enjoy reading-n-listening to the Grand Real World Dramahz: Sheldrake The Philosophical Sceptic Versus Coyne The ReallyScientific™ SkepticDotCom. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Talk Back
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Clover1991 (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
skip!
pira
|
|---|
Please read before posting (PageNotice)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:One_Night_In_Hackney skipped leaving the invite, per #1 and #2 and #4, but especially #6 which specifically bars invites |
analysis of Ahnoneemoos versus Mercy11 and CaribbeanHQ
Here is an example of A collaboratively editing, ironically enough, provided by C themselves. This is back in August, before the "short not-at-all-punitive block" by ArbCom-member SilkTork. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
the tale of keeping SmokeyJoe from turning RfC proceedings into mere WP:POLLs, *and* simultaneously codifying SmokeyJoe's point that closing-admins cannot unilaterally screw over consensus
|
|---|
|
SmokeyJoe changes RfC policy into a pure WP:POLL. August 13th. B-phase of WP:BRD.
Two weeks later... A reverts. August 26th. R-phase of WP:BRD.
Immediately, Born2cycle tweaks. D-phase of WP:BRD, implemented as collaborative WP:BOLDness.
Blueboar expands to a list and a paragraph, then backs off to just a paragraph.
A tweaks once, tweaks twice, then further ("unilaterally") expands the middle.
Born2cycle keeps tweak#1, undoes tweak#2, and undoes expanded-middle but then re-inserts most of the meaning.
All four boldly collaborate to finalize the compromise-wording related to tweak#2.
SmokeyJoe again attempts to cut out some of the meaning, is reverted (this time by Born2cycle).
SmokeyJoe makes some useful tweaks, nobody objects, consensus is achieved, and the policy was improved.
|
Retaking AnonPedia this weekend?
lol dude, your analysis are fucking HILARIOUS. I'm just cracking up.
You are getting much much better about keeping it short and simple. Good job! Fuck what other people tell you man, never create a fucking account. Anonymity forevah.
Anyway, I'm free this Sunday and on Monday. This week should be light too so we can continue talking about AnonPedia or whatever else you want.
Let's use tinychat so that you can remain anonymous. I'm on EST time. Let me know what's more convenient for you.
Happy holidays!
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Good to see you again, as well, and hope you are enjoying December. :-) Okay, cool -- Sunday & Monday. I'll have to look up this tinychat thing. Is it an IRC thing? Wikipedia has a bunch of freenode-somethings, they are usually pretty quiet, we can pick an empty channel, or we can go hang out where the nice people hang out, and see if they want to gab with us... or at least, won't mind listening to us.
- p.s. Hey, you're lucky I happened to think of you, I just went by your homepage to see how you were doing, and wondered what your noticeboard message was about. Anons cannot receive 'you-were-mentioned-over-on-$page' because we do not get echo-messages. Binksternet is tough but fair; they seem to think you were too aggressive somewheres, and that you should promise to be more controlled, but I wasn't sure where. Anyhoo, recommend you focus on making Binksternet happy, because if they're happy, not many other admins could *be* unhappy. p.p.s. Fortunately or unfortunately, my past month has been an exercise in trying to control WP:WALLOFTEXT with an iron fist. Say, speaking of tha....3###%&(($(&###^^^^^NOCARRIER. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- sTaLKeR. 74, Are you still being terrifyingly useful and clued and an asset to this increasingly threadbare setup? Tut. IPs must be disruptive. Tis written. No, wait...Irondome (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hey Irondome, nice to see you... and believe me, I know, I know! My swedish controller -- no relation to the Swedish Chef -- is telling me to use 4711, which is not only what Audrey Hepburn wore, it is also what the Das Boot commandos were issued by the nazi high command. Chilling combination! Anyhoo, I *would* like to get back to vandalizing pages, and spamming about my significant other's internet band, and trolling, and all that good stuff, but until the active-editor-count gets above 100k, what's the point? There's no sport in those visigoth activities anymore, too many wikipedians have been driven away. At some point, there will be enough wikipedians to make such things challenging once again, and I'll go back to my IP roots, but until then, I've been forced to develop WP:CLUE against my will, against my very nature! It's persecution, I swear. ;-) p.s. I look in on the dolphin-sub stuff from time to time, but it seems to have lost steam just when I noticed it. Have you seen stuff crop up in other articles about that? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah, that scary edit notice is gone. Maybe it is safe to post here.
I am cooling my heels waiting to be summoned to the vet's, so I should not do anything too demanding. I am also still depressed. You posted to AN/I recently; did you see this recently closed thread? Stalking Exercising judicious and entirely non-intrusive interest in your contributions led me to Evan Spiegel, where I happily expanded the refs and used them to put some meat on the bones. (I suspect the notability tag can now be removed.) I rather enjoy rescuing articles at AfD, although it seems I won't be able to do with any more what I did recently with Gregory Hodge or Denville Hall unless they are Norwegian, thanks to an inscrutable decision by Google; the Kvasir search engine still lets me make a (limited and painful) news archive search, but for English-language news sources - no longer possible. So what I wanted to say was, consider linking me to PRODded articles or imperiled AfC submissions if you think I might be able to polish them up. I care about both articles and editors, and despite the big gaps in my knowledge I might be able to help. ... and in between Microshit forced reboots, I lurk on IRC, as Rihan. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- So what's wrong with you, exactly? Heartworms? Fleas? Too.Much.Information! :-) What scary notice? No, had not seen Kafziel, but was much cheered by it. It simultaneously proves that a scheme to revive WP:IAR just -- Could -- Work!... whilst also proving that we are understaffed, and forced to make poor decisions due to time-constraints, which end up killing WP:RETENTION. True, there was not hard evidence presented that Kafziel's snap deletion-decisions were *actually* driving away a *significant* number of good future beginning editors. But everybody knows it. Anyways, I like the AfC folks quite a bit, Anne Delong did herself proud in that thread as usual (though her old-to-her-yet-new-to-me proposal for halting all AfC submissions for several months was nuts!), and I strongly say the AfC regulars are working in the right direction.
- But in this case, Kafziel did very well for the most part, and they will be added to my not-a-cabal invite-list, if only I can convince them that The Editors -- meaning the silent ones that took article-deletion as a slap in the face and left forevermore -- are part of the meaning of the term "Wikipedia" also and in addition to the wiki-markup. The technological fix to Kafziel's major complaint is to simply update robots.txt to prevent google from crawling the AfC submission queue. Methinks that is a one-line change that any global sysop can make, and I actually am friendly with one of them. Good idea? Bad idea? p.s. Hope everything goes well for you and yours at the vet.
- p.p.s. Thanks for fixing up Spiegel, appreciate it, wikistalkers are always helpful... and since you are a
suckerhelpful nudge nudge wink wink say no more editor, please see the rough draft of the AfI queue. My list of pointers exists already, in other words, here -- User_talk:74.192.84.101#AfI. Feel free to add your own, and complete the existing ones, although only you and myself will be futzing with it at the moment, that is double what it was yesterday. :-) The Duromac one is possibly non-notable, according to a couple of uninvolved editors, Acroterion and Hasromic(sp). However, can you please give the Duromac sources a look, and see if they are being overly-judicious? The company is a government contractor in Malaysia, and seems borderline in my eyes. Certainly I've seen academic and computer articles with less Notability in mainspace, but of course, WP:OTHERSTUFF is no argument. The Les Pendleton thing is prolly not notable by wikipedia standards, but for my edification, again I would like it if you once-overed my effort there. I have to leave in 25 mins, and get ready in 5 mins, so I don't have time for IRC at present. What channel, the usual en-wiki click-here-for-help one? Perhaps later, my friend. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)- Those and your lapidary notes are a bit too challenging for my current state of mind, and hasn't one of em been deleted? I'll look again when I next have it more together, but do recall that I am a sci/tech incompetent. The hairy ersatz cat gave us all a bad scare and we still await lab results, but after another emergency recheck with X-rays this am, we finally got him to eat and drink again. Probably TMI. I got rebooted again last night but have crawled back onto IRC - I hang out in #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en-help (where the Teahouse and AfC templates send folks for help) and when I remember, #wikipedia-en-helpers, but more importantly, if you're on Freenode you can message Rihan without being in the same chan. However, although I edit Wikipedia from work on breaks when I have time, I only do IRC from my desktop, on which my hours are eccentric. I should be logging off now but obviously am not. Anyway, it's potentially a way to communicate with me more rapidly. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- The article about the film was deleted (properly methinks), but there were some WP:NOTEWORTHY sources that should be stuck in ancillary articles, e.g. Ed Asner. The main point of the listing was to train the author, which I did, but perhaps too late. As for the freenode-message-feature, I knew some IRC systems supported that, but thought it was turned off on freenode. Shows what I know. :-) Yes, talkpages are not horrible, but they are hardly any good for rapid communicado. p.s. Lapidary! Wow, gracias. But I think I'm more like Ishi, or maybe, Ishi's younger sibling. p.p.s. When your brain is fully functional, and your cat is purring happily, you might drop in on the discussion of SORCER and make sure my take on WP:SCHOLARSHIP and also WP:ACADEMIC#Citation_metrics are correct... the field in question is software engineering, but don't let that scare you off. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Those and your lapidary notes are a bit too challenging for my current state of mind, and hasn't one of em been deleted? I'll look again when I next have it more together, but do recall that I am a sci/tech incompetent. The hairy ersatz cat gave us all a bad scare and we still await lab results, but after another emergency recheck with X-rays this am, we finally got him to eat and drink again. Probably TMI. I got rebooted again last night but have crawled back onto IRC - I hang out in #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en-help (where the Teahouse and AfC templates send folks for help) and when I remember, #wikipedia-en-helpers, but more importantly, if you're on Freenode you can message Rihan without being in the same chan. However, although I edit Wikipedia from work on breaks when I have time, I only do IRC from my desktop, on which my hours are eccentric. I should be logging off now but obviously am not. Anyway, it's potentially a way to communicate with me more rapidly. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Would you like another lamb?
The most difficult lambs to foster are academics, and I have an academic for you who could do with your particular brand of lunacyadvice and guidance. I wonder, have I pointed you to WP:ACADEME yet? This user is trying very hard to make SORCER an article here. The item may or may not be notable, and I honestly don't care. All I care about is that it is notable in a Wikipedia sense, and that the notability is demonstrated. The major editor is, regrettably, defending the article with rhetoric, not with demonstration of WP:RS (etc, etc, etc), and exhibits signs of frustration. I hope you may help with that. Inevitably I doubt that my own further help will be useful.
In other news, you have a reply on my talk page :) Fiddle Faddle 11:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Certainly, thank you very much.... I like the taste of mutton, and of course, the sounds of Silence. <ohnohz> <flee> :-) I'll be over in a jiff. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Where are my certifying gloves? Now Mike will not participate (0.9 probability). He is a true academic and his academic toys left his academic perambulator. I wonder why they spoil for a fight instead of realising that this things is bigger than any of us are. The others seem to be arguing on a point of academic principle, and may be susceptible to logical argument. So far they are entrenched. That ought to change. I wish they realised that I don't dive a tuppeny damn about WIZARD, nor about fighting with them, but that I do give a damn about those who drive vans to take processed meat to a dog show. which is what this article and the various surround articles they created amount to.. Fiddle Faddle 17:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sources seem to exist. Have not reviewed the details yet.
- http://www.depts.ttu.edu/cs/department/docs/newsletter/fall_2002.pdf
- http://www.albany.edu/iasymposium/proceedings/2008/8-KerrEdit.pdf
- http://www.actapress.com/Abstract.aspx?paperId=15329
- http://iaesjournal.com/online/index.php/TELKOMNIKA/article/download/2551/pdf
- http://www.academypublisher.com/ijrte/vol01/no01/ijrte0101512517.htm
- Plus various papers. We can use them *with care*. Especially if the PhD thesis projects were *about* SORCER rather than just mentioned it as a tool they used (i.e. in the colophon).
- Danke por improv da pedia. p.s. Mike and Pawel realize that wikipedia is bigger than all of us; that is *why* they want to get this project into mainspace, to prove that they and their work deserve a footnote in history. Wikipedia *is* the history-books, now, that is how important it is. This is why I say we need a million active editors... so that everybody can have a list of ten articles on their watchlists, and once a week, review the nine they *don't* have COI problems with for neutrality. Balance of power, cheques and lobbyists, errr, checks and balances, all that stuff. NPOV is *hard*. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- The challenge is that your first batch are all Primary and Sobol, except one that appears to accept SORCER as The Fat Toad Standard. I think these have already been removed from the article as too much primary stuff.
- Batch 2, first 2 are Sobol stuff. number 3 is again one that uses S and its tadpoles, but does not discuss it.
- And that gets us back to problem number 1, Wikipedia's take on Notability. Fiddle Faddle 19:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- I see a wholly valid use for Sobol's papers. They can be used not as references, but as notes. One gives the ref tag a group name and uses a separate reflist for them with the group name. They form a set if what one might term "useful footnotes" rather than RS references. I have used this technique before, it works, and is valid. It places a set of material that makes up a relevant bibliography at the very points the biblio is relevant, and lists them neatly at the article foot. It is not even much work to achieve. But the vital thing is to determine notability, otherwise all such work has no value. Fiddle Faddle 19:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I have not read 99% of the stuff yet, but it seems clear Professor Sobolewski is interesting and important; they have 89 papers in peer-review journals, including several related to SORCER. For instance, this paper is very likely *not* a primary source in the usual WP:ABOUTSELF sense ... R.M.Kolonay & M.Sobolewski, SORCER for Large Scale, Distributed, Dynamic Fidelity Aeroelastic Analysis & Optimization, International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics, IFASD2011, 26-30 June, Paris, France. Of course, I'll have to check who the peer-reviewers were, to make sure they were not all TTU and AFRL employees with a conflict of interest, but I'd be quite shocked if that were the case. There were also a dozen PhD thesis projects, supervised by the SORCER people... I'd be pretty shocked, again, if they had COI-only committees, or if *none* of those thesis-projects were SORCER itself. Anyhoo, I left some huge notes on the talkpage about the main probs, and will go try and mend the fences with the professor ... they lived through the AI Winter, not to mention the fall of the communist empire, so they're tough and resourceful. Would be an asset to wikipedia methinks. p.s. You dare insult Titanic? <throws down gauntlet> WikiJoust it is! <grin> — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- The longer and louder a team of people protests "Look, MY [insert items here] are notable!" the more I wonder whether they are, indeed, of note. Fiddle Faddle 17:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's borderline, but methinks it might be there. Part of the reason they protest is language-barrier, and jargon-barrier. They are firmly convinced, that if employee#1 of AFRL invtnes a tool, and then employee #2 of AFRL uses that tool to write a paper published by AFRL, that is a "secondary source". Try and gently explain that 'independent' actually means, not paid by the same people. The 2011 IEEE proceedings paper that Pawel mentioned seems conceivably independent... I'm just not sure if it is peer-reviewed, or at least, fact-checked. The proceedings of the conference were published, though, so likely it will count. The paper was about noise-mapping, not about SORCER specifically, but if there is a chapter in there about SORCER, it lends some credence to the claim. Mainly, they are having trouble because almost all of aerospace is military and thus secretive. Anyways, we'll see if Pawel can justify the refs. In the meantime, enjoy the fireworks, and ignore the slurs on our inability to grok the ineffable mogramming exertion stuff as *crucial* to the encyclopedia. POV, yes... but hey, maybe they are correct on the merits. We'll find out. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for reaching out
I appreciate help whenever and wherever I can get it. I probably (not probably, did is more like it) go overboard with some of my responses to the edit war I got into and lost miserably. I don't like some of the material that is up on that page, but there's not much I can do about it. Any effort to change anything on the page will probably result in another 72-hour ban or even longer. I'm not sure what I can do about it, but if you have any suggestions, I am open to them. --Billbird2111 (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, I'm full of advice. Some of it is even good advice! :-)
this material is allegedly purporting to consist of statements characterized as advice, and furthermore some have even gone so far as to say good advice
|
|---|
|
- TLDR: first, stay out of mainspace, for articles which are politics-related-in-any-way-shape-or-form, at least until you learn my Bright-Line™ Jimbo-Approved[citation needed] approach to careful editing while inherently-apparently-conflicted. There are some exceptions to the Bright-Line-Rule, but they are very rare. Second spend some time learning about the main rules nowadays. They are the same as the old rules, really, but folks are more antsy about enforcement. The speed limit was always there, but now the wikiCops are trying to fill their quotas of writing tickets every month. Third ditch the battleground mentality, it is counterproductive. Sure, some folks hate Bob Huff's guts for political reasons, and target his wikipedia page -- unlike the less-high-profile wikipedia pages of his state senate colleagues -- with some sort of agenda in mind. But your best bet is WP:ROPE in this case.
- Nutshell: stick to the high moral ground, stick to the five pillars, and be religious about sourcing. Make sense? Questions? Once you and I are on the same page, we can start making a list of article-talkpage suggestions, about material you "do not like" ... I can tell you whether it is a policy-violation, such as non-neutral overly-negative, or if it is out-of-context-undue, or if you and Bob Huff will have to live with it. That at least should help take some of the uncertainty away, and lower your wikiStress. Hope this helps, and thanks for improving wikipedia, you are appreciated, even if it may not feel like it sometimes. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, I have so much to learn. Was not aware of the problems you mentioned but I also find it quite believable. Could not understand why my admission as being in the employ of the State Senate in Senator Huff's office was such a terrible thing. It had not had that kind of an effect on editors years ago. And yes, the calmer I became over time the better I got along with some folks. My direct boss has urged me to continue with this approach, which I intend to do. I will have a little more time next week to really delve into this and flesh it out. For now, I will leave it to this one question. You've left an entry on my Talk page regarding Common Core and his opposition to a testing measure. Is this something you want me to post up on the Senator's talk page in hopes of getting it changed to what it should be? Because you are correct. The reference to "Hough" is clearly a typo. Thing is, if I start cutting and pasting, it's going to look like my Wikipedia knowledge suddenly jumped exponentially. In other words, it will be fairly obvious that I'm getting some help. NOT THAT I DON'T MIND, MIND YOU. I've been waiting for you. Thanks for the hand.--Billbird2111 (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- ((You are sure welcome -- I appreciate you making wikipedia better so it's the least I could do.)) So much to learn? Nah, you've already learned it. Always always assume good faith, per WP:NICE. Anything you upload, you nor the Senator can own (but I bet you remember *that* lesson from back in 2011 when you were asking for a password to lock down the page!). Stick to a neutral tone that religiously follows the Reliable Sources, no more, no less. Remember this is an encyclopedia, made for the ages. The end. Part of that neutral tone thing, is that because you depend on Huff for your paycheck, you are inherently unable to be perceived as writing neutrally. So, go the extra mile, and be as WP:NICE as you can, by following the Bright-Line-Rule and never editing mainspace where you have even the potential *appearance* of being promotional/spindoctoring/etc. Also, if your gramma has a wikipedia page, don't go writing that she's the best cook in the world, for the same reasons, right? Right.
- Anyways, don't worry about wikiPolitics. They are made of 100% horse-puckey, unlike in the real-o-verse which is only 90% or so. <grin> We have a special thing here, the fifth pillar: if any rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it. Now obviously, it would be dangerous for just anybody (by which I mean you :-) to take that rule literally. But it *is* meant to be quite literal. In your case, let's say you notice somebody has just edited Bob Huff, and put something about the sexual orientation of their junior high basketball coach. What rules do you follow? What about bright line? What about blocking for COI? What about.... pffft. Reverting obvious graffiti is always improving the encyclopedia -- that means you can follow pillar five, and click undo, with an edit summary that says, "hey excuse me but Senator Huff does not teach b-ball at your junior high thanks Bill from the Huff staff" or something equally polite. (The visigoth kiddos just *hate* it when you pretend like you really and truly thought they were SRSLY trying to add actual knowledge to wikipedia.)
- Similarly, if you see a bloody-obvious factual bug, or a blatant typo, like his birthday is listed as 1853 instead of 1953, or his name is spelled Hough instead of Huff, then fix it, again leaving a polite edit-summary, with your COI right in there. Everybody will be glad. Now of course, if somebody adds a quote which says "politician from the other side of the aisle such-n-such claims that Huff is a so-n-so" and cites a newspaper... don't remove it. Complain on the talkpage? Well, maybe... but better to get other Reliable Sources, which cover the same topic, so that you can suggest *those* also belong in the article. Find as many, and as respectable, sources as you can. The weight of all those respected voices saying "such-and-such is wrong about so-n-so" is the best counter-argument, see WP:DUE.
- Now, sometimes you'll get reverted. Passing wikiCop will notice you changing the date from 1853 to 1953, and change it back, saying rvv or G13 or WP:CONSENSUS or some other cryptic thing. Don't get mad, there aren't enough active editors nowadays (*my* main goal is fixing that problem), so all the wikiCops are busy-busy, too busy to check carefully, too busy to lend a hand usually, they just shoot from the hip and run off to fight the next fire. Anyhoo, if you get reverted, just complain on the talkpage. "Huff is not actually turning age 161 next september, folks... can somebody *please* fix the date from 1853 to 1953, it got reverted when I fixed it, thanks, Bill from the Huff staff." If nobody fixes it, ping my talkpage, I might help if I have time. If nobody is around, try WP:TEAHOUSE, explain you work on Huff's staff, and give a pointer to the section on the talkpage where you made your request, and explain that his Senate colleagues are starting to tease him about being Yoda... somebody will come help.
- What about more difficult subjects, like the school-testing-thing? Well, you need a buddy-system for that, at the moment. Once you get practiced up, you'll only need a buddy at the very end, but in the meanwhile, you and I will write the rough-draft-revisions here on your user-talkpage and my user-talkpage, and when we're satisfied, post the suggestion on the main article-talkpage, to see if anybody objects. Wait a few days, nobody complains, I put it in the article, *then* maybe somebody complains, we go back to the talkpage. Keep looping until all editors are satisfied. See WP:BRD. Is everything clear as mud so far? You got anything bugging you? Also, I'll leave a note over on your talkpage about how to ask for help, and how *not* to ask for help. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Good advice here. --NeilN talk to me 20:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Danke NeilN. p.s. reverted one comment per WP:DOX, cf bbb23 talkpage conversation, trying to ask whether 2111 cares about addr (think firewall-security risk-mitigation); I know about whois. Make sense? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I would have preferred for you not to do that but I'm not going to revert you. It's important that the editor see exactly what info is revealed by clicking one link on Wikipedia. --NeilN talk to me 14:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Danke NeilN. p.s. reverted one comment per WP:DOX, cf bbb23 talkpage conversation, trying to ask whether 2111 cares about addr (think firewall-security risk-mitigation); I know about whois. Make sense? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Good advice here. --NeilN talk to me 20:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, I have so much to learn. Was not aware of the problems you mentioned but I also find it quite believable. Could not understand why my admission as being in the employ of the State Senate in Senator Huff's office was such a terrible thing. It had not had that kind of an effect on editors years ago. And yes, the calmer I became over time the better I got along with some folks. My direct boss has urged me to continue with this approach, which I intend to do. I will have a little more time next week to really delve into this and flesh it out. For now, I will leave it to this one question. You've left an entry on my Talk page regarding Common Core and his opposition to a testing measure. Is this something you want me to post up on the Senator's talk page in hopes of getting it changed to what it should be? Because you are correct. The reference to "Hough" is clearly a typo. Thing is, if I start cutting and pasting, it's going to look like my Wikipedia knowledge suddenly jumped exponentially. In other words, it will be fairly obvious that I'm getting some help. NOT THAT I DON'T MIND, MIND YOU. I've been waiting for you. Thanks for the hand.--Billbird2111 (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I really am sorry, I would have asked for self-revert, but your talkpage is still locked down, and I don't think NeilN-style echo-or-whatevers cause the orange bar of doom, is that right? And although I know you've got a ton of experience under your belt, in this case I just re-read the outing stuff for the fifth time in five days, and in fact, Bill and two somebodys I know just had four noticeboard-threads related to outing, which is how I ran across Bill in the first place. :-/ Somebody from wikipedia contacted Bill's boss in real life, off-wiki, which could easily have inadvertently resulted in Bad Things happening. So, while I agree with you wanting to show Bill what is available, you simply ought not slash cannot slash must not post on-wiki the data you did, methinks. Even *linking* to such data is considered "WP:HA" nowadays, which was news to me. Instead, leave them a note which says, hey bill, take your own IP address X.Y.Z.þ number-stuff, and paste it into these URLs (replacing the 8.8.8.8 number which belongs to google), to see what is revealed about you. Does this violate the no-linking rule? Sigh. :-) Who can tell, when there are five bazillion rules, right? It's one step removed, at least, and doesn't leave personal info in the talkpage history.
- http://www.infosniper.net/index.php?ip_address=8.8.8.8
- http://wolfsbane.toolserver.org/~overlordq/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?lookup=8.8.8.8
- http://www.robtex.com/ip/8.8.8.8.html
- http://www.domaintools.com/research/traceroute/?query=8.8.8.8
That way, as long as Bill does the cut-n-paste work, your very-important advice would still be put firmly across, without any hint of possible dox-difficulty. You and I know about these tools, but almost certainly Bill does not... and more importantly, almost certainly most of the 500M readers wikipedia gets every month do not know such things. Anyways, again, the reason I flat-out reverted you was because of the already-very-touchy-circumstances. I'd given Bill wrong advice earlier (didn't realize the oversighters messed with IP revdel since I don't use logins myself), plus they already had a very bad off-wiki experience. Hope this makes sense, and I greatly appreciate your rationale and polite response above, I wasn't sure that was what would happen. :-) Thanks for improving wikipedia, as I always say, and I mean it to the hilt. You didn't do anything really wrong, in my book... but I still think the indirect approach, of providing the URLs and letting them plug in their own IP, is highly preferable. Plus of course, it works when advising folks who have *not* goofed, and forgotten to login; even if they don't know their own IP off the top of their heads, we can always point them at Wikipedia:IP_addresses_are_not_people#External_links... weird, isn't there some Special:IP page which shows you what your IP address is today?
In fact, somebody (like us maybe) should write a page, where folks can visit, which shows them their IP, their user-agent-string, plus the iframe'd output of the four sites above. I searched pretty hard, and found none of that. Maybe it is WP:BEANS at work here, which keeps such an essay from being written, so that the average entrepreneurial visigoth does not have a simple point-n-click way to verify their cloaking is effective? Are you interested in helping get such a page past consensus? Or I guess I should first ask, do *you* think such a page is a good idea? — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Couple things. First, yes, registered editors get a notification whenever they're mentioned. Second, I was being literal when I said that info was available with one click on Wikipedia. Go to your contributions page, scroll to the very bottom, and you'll see a list of links to tools that reveal IP info. --NeilN talk to me 15:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
How do you feel about...
Tag teams of single purpose accounts, who may or may not be sockpuppets and may or may not be meat puppets, who push and push for a thing to be what they want it to be whatever it may or may not be? They feel to me to be not unlike the Lewis Carroll caterpillar defining words, but as a team. Fiddle Faddle 17:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yup, I know how you feel. :-) You should try editing articles on politics, or articles on telepathy, *then* you will really see cliques. Anyways, I believe the wizards are acting in good faith. Keep your chin up, we'll get them roped into editing wisely and serenely, rather than tooting the horns of wikidebate. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I cut my editing teeth here in a firezone. Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. Search for me in Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/Archive 1. I had no interest in that topic, either. But I wanted to se if it was possible to bring order to chaos, and stop people fighting. Determination (such as you are showing) won the day. Fiddle Faddle 18:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, *now* I'm laughing out loud. Yes, telepathy is a walk in the park compared to 9/11. You have my gratitude, I remember thinking a few years ago, hmmm, it looks like they need help there....
- I cut my editing teeth here in a firezone. Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. Search for me in Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/Archive 1. I had no interest in that topic, either. But I wanted to se if it was possible to bring order to chaos, and stop people fighting. Determination (such as you are showing) won the day. Fiddle Faddle 18:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Brave Sir Robin ran away.
- Bravely ran away, away!
- When danger reared its ugly head,
- He bravely turned his tail and fled.
- Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
- And gallantly he chickened out.
- Bravely taking to his feet
- He beat a very brave retreat,
- Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!
- You can call me *Sir* 74, from now on. ;-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is a great shame your IP address does not start 42. See WP:42 for enlightenment. Fiddle Faddle 00:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I've been waiting to see somebody with one of those. It's like collecting license-plate-sightings during a road-trip, from all the countries in the EU, or from all fifty states, or whatever. I just bagged 14 yesterday, which is bad luck in the UK, but you have to decrement your superstitions by one over in the USA, which is curious methinks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- See also, WP:-) as well as WP:-D but not yet WP:-p over in project-space. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I've been waiting to see somebody with one of those. It's like collecting license-plate-sightings during a road-trip, from all the countries in the EU, or from all fifty states, or whatever. I just bagged 14 yesterday, which is bad luck in the UK, but you have to decrement your superstitions by one over in the USA, which is curious methinks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is a great shame your IP address does not start 42. See WP:42 for enlightenment. Fiddle Faddle 00:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Proposed fix for Bob Huff page
Here is the troublesome entry -- as it currently reads:
Huff opposed a plan that would have replaced the current testing system with new tests based on the Common Core learning goals. Because test scores would be unavailable during the new test's two-year trial period, the U.S. Department of Education threatened to impose financial penalties on the state. The alternative supported by Huff was to require the use of both the old and the new test during that period. The state Senate approved the bill.[16]
Here is the suggested replacement, properly sourced (we found the letter!):
Huff strongly opposed a plan that eliminated California’s student assessment system – including social studies[4]. Because test scores would be unavailable, the U.S. Department of Education threatened to impose financial penalties on the state[5]. The alternative supported by Huff was to retain student assessments for California’s students[6]. The state Senate approved the bill knowing it could cost public schools billions in funding[7].--Billbird2111 (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC) --192.234.214.110 (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC) ... sorry forgot to login
- Strong opposition is sourced in video that I place on the Senator's web page. Yes, I know it's his web page and some editors have a problem with this. But it is his speech from the Senate Floor when the bill was brought up for debate. We think you're going to run into a problem by removing the Common Core language, but we'll see. --Billbird2111 (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
--192.234.214.110 (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC) ... sorry forgot to login- ((partial response, still working on other portions)) Excellent, thanks. The upload to scribd is "no good" as an Official Wikipedia Reliable Source, because just like an internet-sports-forum, *anybody* can post almost *anything*. Including faked documents. That said, feel free to post scribd links for *me* to check over, or for other editors. But as cites, they are not usable. They are sometimes usable as clues to Reliable Sources... in this case, there was a clue in who uploaded the letter, it was somebody who works at Southern California Public Radio. Following the trail, here is the story they wrote, which outlines the D.O.Edu versus the CA dems.[90] Probably we can use that story, to get the cites we need, eh? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- September stories, with the two folks that received the letter mentioned.[91] Talk of a 19-page letter, not the same as the two-page one on scribd.[92] Some good quotes here about "not having the budget" to implement the tests... contrast with Huff's Reliably Sourced statement here, back in May, about how only half of Prop 30 funds were going to education, not all of it.[93] 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Left message for you on my talk page, where you requested "three edits." Is that the same as "three wishes for Christmas?"--Billbird2111 (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Talk Back
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Clover1991 (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
There are times when stepping back is essential
Obviously I am annoying the wizards, so I have asked for external eyes to come to the article (see its talk page). I still subscribe to the view that the quantity of blether they produce is inversely proportional to the notability of wizardry.
One of the major issues is that everyone believes their firstborn child to be notable. Most of them just are not.Some of them may become notable, but usually not before puberty at least! Wizarding is highly likely to become notable, but not all computing projects do so. I once worked for an organisation which sold "Goliath" and their little friend "David: computers. They were revolutionary, exciting, emerging technologies, and vanished. Not that I have checked, but I doubt there is an article here on them. Fiddle Faddle 17:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is a grey area, methinks. The key is this: "always with strictly independent peer review process". Refereed scientific papers like that *are* still primary sources, in the sense that they came from the professor in many cases (often as co-author at the bottom of the list... as head of the lab/project/similar this is traditional in biomed and many engineering disciplines where the final review is by the inventor of the initial seed-research... not as a way to boost the *inventor* but as a way to prove the *other* listed authors know what they're talking about!). But we can use those, with care. We just have to get the language encyclopedic. I believe I can solve the jargon-problem, using a spreadsheet-analogy, or a web-browser analogy, which will make the contents understandable to mere mortals.
- Point being, this is not a case of my-children-are-the-most-smartest-wonderfullest-beings-in-the-world-syndrome. NIST paid $14 bazillion bucks for the prototype FIPER, and now the USAF is paying more bazillions for the working engineering-tools, not to mention the Chinese. There are a bunch of highly intelligent folks involved. But because it is military, and because it is extremely complex, there are no articles about it in newspapers. Look at PTC which is a *very* large CAD/CAE-toolsmith, or Catia. The articles are not *bare* of cites, but they are pretty weak methinks.
- This could be one of those rare cases where wikipedia ends up as the first layman's explanation of a complex scientific/engineering technology; we have to stick to the sources, but we actually *have* the humans behind the sources available to correct our mistakes. More eyeballs will definitely help, methinks. Also, it may help if we can confine the discussion of the *meaning* of SORCER and the underlying jargon, to user-talkpages... and try and keep the Talk:SORCER discussion with a laser-focus on listing Reliable Sources that have independent peer-review, ideally also independent publishers and so on. We can call in Drmies and Yngvadottir and friends when we have that list, and they'll tell us if we are out of the grey and into the gold.
- Anyhoo, please don't be unhappy about the situation. You've done zero harm, see below, and in fact, without you being the extremely broad-shouldered good-natured eye-on-pillar-one fellow you are, willing to call in those other eyeballs, they all prolly woulda been indef'd for SPIP by some trigger-happy patroller. (And well, they day is still young, so who knows. ;-) SORCER folks are *lucky* you were their shepherd, in other words. But clearly they are acting in good faith, and have some hope of achieving wikiNotability consensus on use of primary-sources-with-care, if not in 2013, then prolly in 2014. I'll be interested to see how it works out.
- Step into the background if you wish, WP:REQUIRED applies as always, but please stick around, if you don't mind, because we need a wide-open set of eyeballs that have experience judging the grey areas. That's not me, I'm always an optimist. :-) In other news, I'm *still* trying to write up my reply for the CSD/PROD/AfD system... I'll get there. p.s. And speaking of such things, if we end up deciding SORCER is too much of a walled garden for mainspace in 2013, please help shuffle the work into the AfC queue, where Pawel and beaver and Kamuso and the professor can all try and help me get the source-list completed and the prose non-promotional, so that in 2014 SORCER can rise like the Phoenix. <grin> 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you completely. Regarding below I have a friend who has a Masters in ComSci at a German university and a wide experience of complex projects. I pointed him at the article. He pretty much said it is words, all of which mean something, and which he understood individually, but not when they were put into those sentences.
- He then turned to the Sorcersoft website. His analysis was "I am ten minutes in and I have no idea what and where the product is." He spent more minutes failing. His conclusion from the resources there is that it is an open source environment. He said "if I had to take a shot at an explanation, I'd say it's a layer that hides web services behind a standaradized facade". He is the type of man that would, were he still in academe, be likely to be a peer of the professor's. I am from a different background, but I saw nothing on that website to tell me what it is either. And the article fails to tell me what it is. And it must. And it must in the lead paragraph(s).
- I return, beating the same old drum, to notability. As you know, once this is proven to be notable, I have done my work. Of course I'm happy to attempt rewording things, but will not attempt it prior to proven notability. I can copyedit until the bovines return home, and remove their scatology, too. It just isn;t worth the attempt before notability is established.
- Other eyes are easy to call in
. I don't care about the content at this stage, just the references and notability. The challenge is actually getting other eyes in. No-one will die if this happens slowly. Fiddle Faddle 13:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, we are on the same page. I have some background here, so I actually understand what the professor said, and what SORCER does. Translating that into something the readership will understand is another matter, but I will take a shot. As for wikiNotable, and wikiReliable, this is a special situation, with many primary sources and high complexity. It will take time, at least the rest of this month, prolly longer, but I expect by February we'll know if we have enough peer-reviewed papers, or if we need to delay another semester to get a high number of cited-in-the-literature-of-the-field counts on them, or what. Danke my friend. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have some background there too. A lifetime of IT sales and marketing, converting concepts into bullshit & hype and into sales. Serious product management for a once major mainstream vendor of tin and software, and also for the 900lb gorilla in IT the research space. TRPoD is doing a fine job with a scalpel. I wonder what the midwifery team willl do. Fiddle Faddle 15:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
p.s. Actually, speaking of notability-expertise, can you give me a judgement call on Duromac? We have three main sources, plus several WP:NOTEWORTHY mentions. There is a newspaper article, a government website article, and a couple of financial magazine articles (but these finance-articles cover one event). The company has been around since 1995, but recently upgraded from municipal contracts to also winning government-of-Malaysia military contracts, for equipment-maintenance. The military angle is what most of the press-coverage concerns.
Each source is tiny in terms of wordcount. A paragraph plus a photo in the first newspaper source. A paragraph plus a PDF press-release in the government source. Two sentences in the financial mags (content varies a bit so call it a paragraph). Most of the time, the *title* of the piece does not mention the company, but instead mentions the product, or the contract... but in all cases, the company *does* specifically get "significant" coverage in each piece, 50% of the newspaper piece, 100% of the govt piece, and 20% of the finance-pieces.
More importantly, to my mind, all three of the 'major' sources cover real-world events, where VIPs in the world of Malaysian politics were personally hobnobbing with the Duromac executives. Newspaper source was the Minister-of-Works personally attending the grand opening of the new Duromac HQ, then getting their photo 'driving' some equipment with the Duromac execs posed on either side. Government source was a Brigadier General in the RMAF personally hosting a contract-award-ceremony at another Duromac branch, again with the hobnobbing (no pic on the govt website but there is a pic of the event on some RMAF-related blog to verify nobs were smilingly hobbed). Finally, in the finance-articles it was the Malaysian Minister-of-Defence doing the hobnobbing, at a big defence-department awards gala, with Duromac and eight other companies being especially noteworthy for getting especially lucrative contracts which involved floor-space in a new govt-funded mil-tech-park facility. (Some other company exec got the photo-op shaking the defence-minister's hand in the finance-articles I've seen, so Duromac folks got totally shafted by the dern journalists the *third* time around. ;-)
Anyhoo, by the usual proxy metric, wordcount in sources, the subject is *not* yet wikiNotable... but by number and variety of sources, spread over time 2003 thru 2013+, and by read-between-the-lines inference of all the personal attention the firm gets from high-level government officials, it seems very much a grey area to my eyeballs. Cheney and maybe even Halliburton were not notable by wikipedia standards in 1999, prolly... but prolly there *was* enough coverage to justify them, by then.
I guess my real question is not a yes/no, does Duromac qualify for mainspace today, but more of a can-you-school-me-in-how-they-fall-on-the-spectrum type of thing. If you have some time, here is the AfC submission,[94] see comment#2 for my assessment of the noteworthy & maybe-notable sources. If not, no prob, as always. p.p.s. There is a like-an-advert-snark-banner up top, but that is already corrected, the current prose (such as it is) stays minimal and religiously stick to indep sources. Also, Clover has come up with the list of equipment-models, so I'm planning to add a photo-gallery, similar to the Hako article over in deWiki, which is one of Duromac's main overseas suppliers (municipal not military... they use French and methinks-Turkish hardware for their military contracts). Gracias por tu mui bien la wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
SORCER Challenge
It's nice the hear from you. I work at least 16 hours a day on hight priority projects so my time is very limited for other activities.
If you are really interested what I do, please read the most recent paper by R. Kolonay that explains AFRL challenges in physics-based design used for the next generation of air vehicles. In that paper SORCER is just mentioned as the platform of choice. How it is used is described for example in the paper on mogramming for the next generation efficient supersonic air vehicle (public release of the DoD ESAV project). More on mogramming in "Unified Mogramming with Var-Oriented Modeling and Exertion-Oriented Programming Languages". You can download these three papers at: http://ebooks.iospress.nl/publication/34808, http://ebooks.iospress.nl/publication/34826, and http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=22393. All papers written on SORCER by me and others are published in journals and conference proceedings always with strictly independent peer review process, so in my opinion all these papers can be treated as secondary sources as well.
You can find the list of my papers at: http://sorcersoft.org/sobol/resume/publications-sobol.pdf and much more of other authors in the internet. If you need copies of any papers you are interested in, please let me know and I can email you a copy. I assume selected papers are provided as the references in the Wikipedia SORCER article, not mine however after I have asked editors to remove my contribution to the SORCER article when I was accused of promoting my work. From the Internet point o view I do not care where that is located, anyhow everyone interested comes to http://sorcersoft.org or may page at http://sorcersoft.org/sobol/ or visit us at the Multidisciplinary Science and Technology Center at AFRL/WPAFB.
To describe in plain English the methodology of SORCER is not an easy task at all even for me. It requires a different mindset to service orientation. When we say everything is a service, usually everyone thinks about a service at the back-end (server or provider). In SORCER a service is the end user composition of services created at the front-end, at runtime, per a single invocation that runs multiple front-end and back-end services. So there are at least front-end services, back-end services, and the end-user composite services. Yes it gets confusing when we say everything is a service and then multiple types of services are distinguished that run in multiple places at the same time. To make it a little clear I use terms front-end (intra), back-end (inter or intra) and composite (exertion). The SORCER federated method invocation (FMI) invokes an exertion as a federations of inter/intra services running at the front-end and back-end. In engineering terms (e.g., aerospace) each exertion (created on the fly by an engineer) is his new composite tool that combines automatically a set of component tools specified by the end user (not programmer at the server but at the front-end) for very complex calculations that run concurrently multiple models and multiple programs(mograms) anytime and anywhere. That allows for creative people run each time their new tools as exertions locally and/or in the network with autonomic provisioning of service providers.
For me the above description is clear and a pretty good description, but when I teach SORCER, usually everyone gets confused. To avoid confusion we have to name things differently, so we have a few new names as the necessity. Anyhow, only after programming exercises the best students and scientists get it right. It recalls me the paradigm shift from procedural to object-oriented programming. It took 10-20 years to get object-orientation right. SORCER's service-orientation faces the same challenge.
It looks to me like "mission impossible", but if you think you can help me translate this paradigm shift into plain English, I might find some time to review it and improve your or your colleague understanding of the underlying SORCER concepts and methodology.Mwsobol (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hello again Professor, appreciate your reply. I remain cognizant of your time-constraints, but as it turns out, we have several of your former students who are eager to help, so I do believe that this mission will be a success... though I doubt it will take half an hour, like the old Leonard Nimoy episodes, or even 99 minutes like the recent summer blockbuster movies. :-) The key at this stage is to gather together the sources (I've already been going through your website actually — but thanks for the SCIRP.org link that helps), and categorize which mention SORCER, and which cover it deeply. We verify the reviewers exist, and are independent. Same for exertions. Same for the service-oriented methodology. Tim and myself have enough experience with the wiki-bureaucracy to do that work, with some help from your colleagues-turned-wikipedians.
- Then, I'll try my hand at the encyclopedic-prose-description in layman's terminology, and have Pawel and the other smart folks check my effort, and we'll present you with what we came up with. Fortunately or unfortunately, the wheels of wikiJustice grind very slowly... but they do grind fine. Don't be alarmed if you see "threats of deletion" and big banners asserting wild accusations on the article, from time to time. They are just work-in-progress signs, nothing more. They are like the "CONSTRUCTION CREW AT WORK" warnings that you see on the road, or the "WET FLOOR WATCH YOUR STEP" signs in an office. Unlike a construction job, or even a janitorial task, wikipedia has 500M readers every month, but only 185 paid staff (half server-sysadmins and half lawyers... they rarely touch actual articles and concentrate on fundraising-donation-stuff). Everybody else is here as a volunteer, yourself included, writing the history of knowledge. The signs and alarms are entirely intended to attract volunteer wikipedians, to come to the articles, and help improve things. That's all.
- A month or two from now, everything will have settled down, and either the articles will be in mainspace as part of the official wikipedia entries, or they'll be migrated into our incubator-queue of articles we expect will be ready for mainspace in six months or so (called WP:AfC which is where I'm working on the exertion oriented programming article you already created). From the outside, it looks like a harrowing procedure, but the intent of all the razzle-dazzle is merely to try and guarantee that wikipedia's contents are as reliable as they can be, and as neutrally-phrased as they can be, for a top-ten-website. Insert metaphor about making sausage here! :-) In the meanwhile, feel free to concentrate on your off-wiki efforts, I will leave a note on your wikipedia talkpage when we have something ready for your critical review. Of course, feel free to drop in any time, and drop a note on Talk:SORCER or my talkpage here, if you wish. Thanks much, once again, for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- If you're looking to help and improve the draft on exertion oriented programming, I'd be quite grateful for that. After going over it a few times, I think I need quite a bit of help understanding what it is about, not to mention putting the article in terms that a non-technical reader will also understand. I'm also concerned about the notability of the subject. So far I'm quite unsure if it would stand up at AfD, but on first look, it seems it might not - and I very much don't like to first tell a submitter of a draft I approved their article, only to see it be deleted shortly after. — User_talk:Martijn Hoekstra 23:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, I will help Martijn — I've already read through the AfC draft, and like SORCER the satisfaction of wikiNotability guidelines turns on the careful analysis of the primary sources. But there are quite a few papers from peer-reviewed journals and conferences, which the folks who know the topic best are bringing forward. It will just take some time to figure out which topic (exertions / SORCER / service-oriented-architecture / other) is covered in each of the sources, and to what level of depth ... there are a lot of scientific/engineering papers, and they are complex documents full of complex concepts. In the meanwhile, leave the draft in AfC, we already have our hands full with related articles in the AfD construction-zones, and as I understand the related pieces better, I'll try and help fix up the jargon to be more accessible. Thanks much. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! I would for a start be quite happy if I understood what an exertion is. Shall I move the draft from talk space to project space, so we can use the talk as a regular talkpage? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, please leave it, the professor and the other folks (Pawel/beavercreek/Kazumo/131/maybeMore) prolly have the AfC URL in their browsers. We can just make a 'rough draft area' at the bottom. I will go there now. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, sure. Just to double check we're talking about the same thing, I meant a move from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Exertion-oriented programming -> Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Exertion-oriented programming. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. :-) And usually that would be harmless, but the professor and the three or four other PhD editors that showed up to work on exertions/SORCER/etc are all beginning editors, not used to the crazy bullshit that passes for wikiCulture around here. They've already been deleted five times, and reverted several hundred, by zealous folks trying to defend wikipedia's reliability today this instant against anything and everything which is not 100% compliant with the five bazillion diktats from authoritah. So I don't want to have the move mistaken for yet another WP:BITE. Hope this makes sense. I created the section-splits, which we can nix when we're finished with them, or better, migrate to article-space versus article-talk-space, once the decisions are finalized. Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, sure. Just to double check we're talking about the same thing, I meant a move from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Exertion-oriented programming -> Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Exertion-oriented programming. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, please leave it, the professor and the other folks (Pawel/beavercreek/Kazumo/131/maybeMore) prolly have the AfC URL in their browsers. We can just make a 'rough draft area' at the bottom. I will go there now. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! I would for a start be quite happy if I understood what an exertion is. Shall I move the draft from talk space to project space, so we can use the talk as a regular talkpage? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, I will help Martijn — I've already read through the AfC draft, and like SORCER the satisfaction of wikiNotability guidelines turns on the careful analysis of the primary sources. But there are quite a few papers from peer-reviewed journals and conferences, which the folks who know the topic best are bringing forward. It will just take some time to figure out which topic (exertions / SORCER / service-oriented-architecture / other) is covered in each of the sources, and to what level of depth ... there are a lot of scientific/engineering papers, and they are complex documents full of complex concepts. In the meanwhile, leave the draft in AfC, we already have our hands full with related articles in the AfD construction-zones, and as I understand the related pieces better, I'll try and help fix up the jargon to be more accessible. Thanks much. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- If you're looking to help and improve the draft on exertion oriented programming, I'd be quite grateful for that. After going over it a few times, I think I need quite a bit of help understanding what it is about, not to mention putting the article in terms that a non-technical reader will also understand. I'm also concerned about the notability of the subject. So far I'm quite unsure if it would stand up at AfD, but on first look, it seems it might not - and I very much don't like to first tell a submitter of a draft I approved their article, only to see it be deleted shortly after. — User_talk:Martijn Hoekstra 23:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Let's hope it'll be a reasonable process. I'd hate to do a history split to distill a proper attribution chain for the talk page when peusdo-talk edits and draft article edits are made in a single edit action. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I wish you a successful process. All that has ever concerned me in this area is the same as in any area. WP:N with WP:V in WP:RS. The fog created by multiple learned papers, some of which may be acceptable as RS is hard to break through, as is the obvious loyalty and enthusiasm of the proponents of the various articles in this area. Our rigour is to delete things (or not to allow things to be created) when RS is absent. Getting this message across to an enthusiastic and cause-loyal editor is hard in the extreme. Fiddle Faddle 17:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Heck, I'd settle for a barely-by-the-skin-of-our-teeth half-the-editors-made-it-alive process! :-) Wikipedia is a real-world example of The Right Stuff sort of approach in action. As for the concern Martijn raised about edit-history of the exertions-article... well... I must admit the history-split is something I assumed was not needed. I always assumed that article-history was just "blank" except for the originator-who-created-the-AfC-submission getting credit, when moving to mainspace, and all the AfC-editing-history became mainspace-article-talkpage-history, but I guess that cannot be correct. What is the point of putting articles into "talk" in the first place, when they are created in the AfC queue, if not to allow COI editors to say their piece?
- Tim, yes, I know you are working purely on the basis RS, just as valiantly as always, and fully in good faith, as painful and thankless as that task is. Much appreciated; your work is far above the usual quality-bar, even when measured amongst NPP-savvy folks, and I don't mean to lump you in with the everyday deletionist... in fact, I *like* all the deletionists, they *all* do good work, even the ones which go overboard ( RickK) have my sympathetic ear. Tim is no WikiGiant, by any stretch of the imagination; they are a WikiKnight, methinks, no Patrick required, no coconuts necessary either. :-)
- More to the point, it is not certainly not Tim's fault we have a broken wikiCulture... and indeed, it is *not* broken at all, when evaluated based solely on the content of mainspace. Our wikiCulture of immediate deletionism, and banning those who complain about WP:BITE as being 'disruptive', has been very effective at keeping mainspace free of the more blatant sorts of nigerian spammers, from 2007 through 2011 or maybe even 2012. (That is no longer true... see Wiki-PR if you need proof... they are just the tip of the iceberg.) But it is also, simultaneously, nothing less that horrid in terms of how effectively it drives away smart passionate experts, here to share their knowledge with the 500M readers. The fault is our own, not the experts. We must fix the wikiCulture, so we assume that every visigoth has a PhD and 90 peer-reviewed papers. Because as Mwsobol proves, sometimes they do! He is no visigoth, he is a prime asset, if only we can prevent ourselves from driving him away. We must reform our wikiculture to attract assets, whilst still retaining our capacity to repel visigoths. That won't be easy, but we have to damn well do it.
- The comments by beavercreek about the state of our articles on RMI, unix pipes, and similar stuff are 100% dead-on correct. No experts are maintaining those articles. They were driven away, long ago. There is still time to change ... but in terms of editor-retention, there *is* a deadline. We will last out 2013, no problem. We will get through 2014. But if we do not invert the declining active-editor-count by the start of 2015, when wikipedia is likely to have 666M unique visitors per month, we are in terrible terrible trouble.
- Already, right now, today, there is a new article created every 127 seconds, actual measurement across some particular 64-hour timespan. The vast majority are vanispamicrufticrapola, or whatever phrase Tim uses. But somewhere between 1% and 10% are written by Good Eggs. We can either delete *all* of them, and drive *all* editors away, Good Eggs as well as Bad Eggs, thereby killing wikipedia herself, as embodied in her community... or we can fix the wikiCulture, so that instead of driving away the Good Eggs, because we are too busy-busy to help, we retain them. Good Eggs, banding together, can repel the visigoths of the future, no matter how numerous the visigoths become. But we are running out of time to build that army of Good Eggs... and that is a mortal illness, if we don't act. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- As a quick note only on 'why on talk', that was done since IP editors can't create articles in non-talk namespaces anymore. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Duromac
I've looked at the AfC item. I see just sufficient notability for a decent stub. The sourcing is tenuous at times, but the passing mentions appear to be significant and in RS. I fiddled with reference groups to I could see the wood form the trees. You may not even know this technique exists for refs. You'll like it of you haven;t seen it before. It allos (eg) Notes and References in spearate escetions in the same article.
My take would be to combine the attempts into a single referenced stub and either submit it to review (if the article was previously deleted) or simply to move it (once assembled) into main space.
Where is it on the notability scale? JUST on the right side of the border, I think. Fiddle Faddle 14:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, good, we agree again. You must be incredibly wise and startlingly good-looking and fantastically wealthy. :-) Couple other editors have glanced at it and turned it down as not-yet-wikiNotable, but methinks on word-count, shooting from the hip. Once I put in the picture-gallery, and fix up the prose, we'll submit the article again. Clover will be happy to hear some leaning-towards-good news. We're still a long way from consensus, but there is hope. p.s. Some *much* larger corporations in Malaysia also have no entries, despite literally hundreds of newspaper-articles, which is crazy. Clover might be willing to help us with those; especially the sourcing is a problem, because the country uses Tamil and Chinese as well as English in their media, so getting sources is often a translation headache. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I am all of those things, or was once. except wealthy, natch. The sourcing is the problem. The article must be tight and play only to the sources. We don;t care about the product range, just the notability items. And it can be VERY short without compromising notability. Keep it really tight. Fiddle Faddle 15:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yup, agree. p.s. Thanks for multi-reflist trick... your mastery of wiki-markup, and good eye for judging wikiNotability, may yet bring you riches... I hear wiki-PR is hiring! ;-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- very happy! Thank you guys a lot!!!!May I know what I should to help DUROMAC article right now?--Clover1991 (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yup, agree. p.s. Thanks for multi-reflist trick... your mastery of wiki-markup, and good eye for judging wikiNotability, may yet bring you riches... I hear wiki-PR is hiring! ;-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I am all of those things, or was once. except wealthy, natch. The sourcing is the problem. The article must be tight and play only to the sources. We don;t care about the product range, just the notability items. And it can be VERY short without compromising notability. Keep it really tight. Fiddle Faddle 15:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, we're not out of the woods yet, careful with all those exclamation-marks. :-)
- You should prolly avoid writing the missing sentences, for now, so we can keep a neutral tone from the start.
- You can format the references, if you like, that is not controversial, just tedious. See WP:CITE#Webpages, plus this example wiki-markup.[8]
- You can look for existing free-as-in-freedom equipment-imagefiles, which have a correct copyright-license (wikipedia-compatibile! do not just download stuff from the internet! see WP:COPYVIO). Try [95] and also [96].
- If possible, you can create new free-as-in-freedom imagefiles with a digital camera, but you must get permission to take and upload photos of Duromac buildings/facilities/equipment/etc under a copyright-license that allows *anybody* to use them for almost *any* purpose. See particularly [97] and also [98].
- You can start working on the WP:AfC submissions for Hako (company) and Alam Flora, or for other Malaysian companies, which will help you flesh out the coverage of related companies, plus give you some experience with 'easier' articles (there are tons of sources about Alam Flora... and Hako is already sourced in the deWiki article).
- Along the way, keep your eye peeled for more Duromac reliable-sources, especially in Chinese or Tamil (which most of your fellow editors cannot understand nor therefore search for).
- Also, I want a WP:PONY. :-)
Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, you can have a pony:
Pony!
Congratulations! For asking nicely and having a fascinating user page, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw(talk) 21:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.
If you want a real challenge
Try the articles on caste and related matters that Sitush specialises in patrolling. The Asian Subcontinent produces editors of qualities ranging from excellent to appalling. We never notice those at the excellent end of the scale because they are, well, excellent. Fiddle Faddle 17:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- WP:IDHT. :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I've seen that movie, it was awesome. Wilson! WilsonnNN!! WILSON!!!! My goal right now is to overcome the wiki-caste-system here on-wiki, which only started getting bad around 2007 or so... I don't have time to take on the off-wiki caste-system. But I've seen Sitush in action, they seem very helpful.
- Ironically, in a very bitter way, one of the downsides to my plan of bringing in a bunch of new editors, is that it requires busting up the current wiki-caste-system of 2013... getting back to good old pillar five... but once that is done, and a million active editors becomes an accomplished fact, those same new editors will almost certainly form a *new* wiki-caste-system, not realizing they were just saved from one. People suck. The best I can hope for, is that we will enshrine WP:IAR and the other pillars into the wiki-constitutional-convention of summer 2015, or something like that. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I prefer Polar Express. THAT is a real nightmare, and Hanks did it so well. The WIkicaste is the one we must deserve, because we have created it. We will deserve the ones that come after it, too. Fiddle Faddle 23:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Also good film footage. As for just desserts, or justice in the desert, or those who trade a little editing-freedom in exchange for a bit of visigoth-security deserve neither... methinks I've heard those phrases before. And the counter-phrase is, to stick with a running theme, also from a good movie: No Fate But What We Make. :-) The question is not whether we deserve what we have now, today; the question is whether we can overcome inertia, summon enough gumption, solve enough obstacles, and create the future we deserve. If we do nothing, well then, we get what we deserve. If we do something horridly evil, well then, we get what we deserve. If we manage something sublime and beautiful, we get what we deserve. There is a tautology there methinks. But I can tell you this: I know what I deserve, I earned it, and I intend to hold my breath until I get it.
- Up until recently, I was just going along, in my own little corner of the wikiverse, assuming good faith, ignoring all rules, following the five pillars in my own little shire. But no longer. Now the dangers have become clear to me. The solution also seems clear to me. We must overcome the wikiCaste system, then cast the One Ring into the fires of... wait. Wait wait wait, wrong story. It's all going fuzzy, I've lost focus for this wiki-day. But on the morrow, I shall try again, and will keep trying until there is wiki-liberty and wiki-justice for all. Join me, Luke, and together we will rule the wikiverse as father and... wait, dammit, that's the wrong story too! Nevermind. :-) Talk to you later, if I can ever remember what the dern heck we was talking about, that is. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I prefer Polar Express. THAT is a real nightmare, and Hanks did it so well. The WIkicaste is the one we must deserve, because we have created it. We will deserve the ones that come after it, too. Fiddle Faddle 23:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Occasionally I get Wikipassions. Something strokes me and truly is worth pursuing. Sometimes it is to enhance the article, other times to consign it to the recycle bin of life. Sometimes I get struck by topics like WP:CYBER, where 'we' fail to understand that this thing is used to bully others. Other times I get passionate about 'Suicide of Foo' vs 'Foo' article titles. I have even been known to lose my sense of fun with more strident editors. I tend to think of this place as Mission Implausible. Fiddle Faddle 19:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the tale of me an 14.198.*
Thanks for the tale. I agree with all of it (including that both of us are acting in good faith, and have wandered too close to edit warning at various times). 63.251.123.2 (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sandstein is a bit hard (that arbcom warning for MOS was totally over the top), but you very definitely *were* edit-warring on CatPeerReview, as was 14. There is a 'technical' definition of 3RR, but that means nothing, see the fifth pillar. I can tell you and 14 were edit-warring, because 14 got angry a little bit, over on the Talk:Science discussion-page. :-) When a pillar
twofour (thanks 63... I'm getting old :-) violation results, then it was an edit war, in my book, albeit in this case a slow one. - Anyhoo, nice to meet you, call me 74. Well, unless some other pretender-to-the-throne-of-74 happens along, in which case, call me 74.192, or just "hey you" or whatever. Per the suggestion from Bbb23 that you and myself and 14 work things out, and then ask Bbb23 to deprotect, are you interested? If so, what do you think is correct, and what do you think is partially correct, and are any of these flat-out-incorrect? 14 had a local consensus that the first one is incorrect, but neither you nor myself were included in that earlier consensus, and consensus can change. But I was never really clear on your actual stance.
- CatPeerReview child of CatScientificMethod
- CatPeerReview child of CatScience
- CatPeerReview child of CatRhetoricOfScience
- CatPeerReview child of CatPhilosophyOfScience
- CatPeerReview child of CatMethodologyOfScience
- CatPeerReview child of CatPedagogyOfScience
- CatPeerReview child of CatNoneOfTheAbove
- CatPeerReview child of CatSomethingNotMentionedPleaseSpecify
- Feel free to answer briefly, or at length, as you see fit. I'll ask the same question of 14, and then try and help you to get back to a strong focus on the content. Appreciate the note, and also appreciate you improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- User:Ancheta Wis joined the discussion, and inspired me to look at all the parent categories currently on CatPeerReview, and notice that (in my view now) most of them (including CatScientificMethod) are actually wrong. See my most recent comment on Talk:Scientific_method#Is_peer_review_scientific_method.3F. Hopefully this can resolve things. I don't actually disagree that peer review is better thought of as part of the rhetoric (and publishing) of science -- my issue was that I saw what looked like a pattern of downplaying any relationship between science and peer review/consensus, and I wanted to question that. I accept your characterization of the interaction as an edit war (albeit a slow one). (Did you mean pillar 4, not pillar 2, though? I don't think there was a violation of NPOV (i.e. pillar 2), unless I'm still missing something...) 63.251.123.2 (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Peer review is *tightly* related to what I would call the methodology and pedagogy of science... it is a way things are kept neutral slash objective, and also the way most teaching and most research happens. (Maybe that's why I said two instead of four; good catch.) Here on the pedia, we try to keep things neutral by sticking to the sources... whereas in science, they try to keep things neutral by calling for independent peer review, experimental replication, and so on.
- Those things involving "peers" actually aren't the scientific method, though. Robinson Crusoe, on a desert island by himself, can engage in the scientific method... if he is careful to think clearly and objectively. He cannot engage in peer-review, though... unless we get philosophical, and start talking about him objectively reviewing himself. Which is what I think the scientific method boils down to, in the end: peer review of oneself, and checking one's facts against the universe's answers, empirically. Now, since I don't have a WP:RS for my pet theory, we'll have to ditch it. <grin> But yes, it's a fun topic; kinda thorny to think about, and tricky to get right. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- User:Ancheta Wis joined the discussion, and inspired me to look at all the parent categories currently on CatPeerReview, and notice that (in my view now) most of them (including CatScientificMethod) are actually wrong. See my most recent comment on Talk:Scientific_method#Is_peer_review_scientific_method.3F. Hopefully this can resolve things. I don't actually disagree that peer review is better thought of as part of the rhetoric (and publishing) of science -- my issue was that I saw what looked like a pattern of downplaying any relationship between science and peer review/consensus, and I wanted to question that. I accept your characterization of the interaction as an edit war (albeit a slow one). (Did you mean pillar 4, not pillar 2, though? I don't think there was a violation of NPOV (i.e. pillar 2), unless I'm still missing something...) 63.251.123.2 (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Deletion or Draft:
See Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Deletion_and_Draft:. The floor is yours. Fiddle Faddle 21:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- While you are having lots of Wikifun with ANI and things, this one os moving reasonably positively despite the wisdom of crowds. Come and have some
leit motflight relief. Fiddle Faddle 21:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I have an open tab with a response to you, saying that I'll be tied up in the vortex for a bit. I'm almost finished with the hectic portion of "wikiFun" and am ready for something refreshing, like pushing a gigantic boulder up the side of a mountain forever. Also, I invited Jenova20 to join our chat about outing the hetero-cabal, or whatever the heck it is we're trying to make happen. ;-) Maybe if we're lucky, they'll award you a copy of Civ5 or something cool like that... I was too slow to enter the contest, myself. TFIW. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- I suggest you try to push a rope up the hill first. The Wisdom of Crowds has, in many places, turned to lunch law. We beat folk to death with sandwiches. But I hope one might kickstart a little back to the time when hope was bright and matters were new.
- Is a Hetero-Cabal like a minotaur? If so I commend Mary Renault's novels to you. Actually I loathe, detest and despise all cabals, either formed ad hoc or actually running behind the scenes. I am not keen on cartels either.
- What I expect in Wikipedia is way above what happens. I expect high standards of politeness even in ht disagreements, and I expect respect for all forms of diversity. I also recognise that Wikipedia is US Centric and that the US culture is starting to learn about non discrimination. It was ever slow. Back emancipation only happening within my lieftime was a profound shock. Here in the Uk we could not believe how this was even an issue. Fiddle Faddle 18:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Your statement on the Kafziel arbitration case
Hi 74, just letting you know that I've moved the statement you made on the evidence talk page because it appeared to be a comment on the process and case rather than evidence. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:ARE
There is currently an Arbitration Enforcement Request "Barleybannocks" regarding an issue in which you may have been involved. --Iantresman (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Magnifico
MONGO the magnificent?! Well...not sure about the accolade, but you are right about the key to avoiding burnout...find a quiet corner to edit where no-bloody will bother you. Thanks!--MONGO 18:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, I've seen your hairy-shakespeare-barnstar-slash-portrait, don't try to pretend MONGO is not in all ways MAGNIFICENT. Tell fishzilla or bishwilla or WhatEvah they call themselves today, that they better stay in the water, cause the forest is ruled by MONGO
- p.s. Since I will soon be consumed, whole, by a very large blue kraken, I hereby pre-probate my talkpage and all my other wikiverse-belongings to 42, the anon with all the answers. R.I.P. 74, we knew ye too well! ;-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
DUROMAC new pic
Hey, 74! I went to DUROMAC and discussed with them about pictures, I am allowed to take some pictures and upload to Wikipedia. They suggest me only to take DUROMAC facility and DUROMAC Cityfant 60 pictures. Because they think if I am going to take all product pictures, it will looks like advertising again. I already post in my afc submission page, please go and check it. And please tell me these pictures are ok or not.Thanks--Clover1991 (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Go ahead and take pictures of all the products: front view, side view, close-up of the engine, close-up of the cab, if they don't mind. That would be advertising, if we put those pictures into the article about Duromac, you are correct. But those pictures would be great for wikipedia's other articles, about engines, about street-cleaning-equipment, and things like that. Do you know what I mean? Anyways, you are not WP:REQUIRED to take a million photos if you don't want to, but if you are going to be there anyways, and it's not too much trouble, go for it. Take some pics of Puchong, too, eh? Or whatever facility you happen to be around. Just remember that once they ar euploaded to wikipedia, anybody can use them. Should not be any recognizable humans, except "public figures" like Samu Vella, for instance... we don't want wikipedia to get sued. But places and things, and people in teh distance (or who have agreed to have their picture uploaded for anybody to photoshop later), those are all fine. We don't have to use all the pictures in the DUROMAC article, for that we just need one or two or three, plus a map. Hope this helps, hope you are well, talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, Got it. I will try my best to take more pictures and contribute to Wikipedia. I discussed with DUROMAC CEO, he agree with DUROMAC article right now, he suggests to submit our article again. How do you think of it? If you think it is a good idea, then I would like to only keep the article part and I will submit it:)--Clover1991 (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
What were you trying to say about Barleybannocks?
74, I noticed that an administrator has deleted[[99]] your contribution to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Barleybannocks due to its ramblingness. I tried reading what you wrote, but became confused. It seemed to me like you were suggesting that Barleybannocks be banned or you were very sarcastically suggesting that he not be banned. I just thought that I’d stop by and ask what exactly you were getting at. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hey again 76, welcome back, thanks for the heads-up. No way to put this gently: dead wrong on both your seemed-to-me interpretations. :-) My fault as the author, not yours as the reader perhaps this hermeneutic tangent (more concise but with more run-on sentences) may help you grok more deeply, but given your reply to me over on David's page, I'll admit such grokkage seems vastly improbable to occur in my lifetime (I'm not giving up just yet but my morphic-related-gumption is a bit low right now). Anways, here, try this: I might try again at AE, I suppose, but since the AE admins didn't bother with the courtesy of letting me know they reverted, I'm pretty sure that the only thing the AE admins want is ban-worthy diffs, and I'm not playing that game.
alternative metaphor-of-explanatory-power ... may help?
|
|---|
|
- Anyhoo, I doubt that was clearer. If you still want to chat here, I'm happy to give you an incrementally-ever-clearer picture, but please cut-n-paste a specific sentence you don't understand, rather than saying you got lost, and asking for the nutshell. If, given the tight time-constraints of AE stuff, I was able to boil it down further, I would. :-) You have not posted there yet, even though you are wp:involved... maybe telling me your take, will help me explain how mine differs. Or we can talk about the lilac and the glacier, if you can cool on that topic. There's an allcaps bolded sentence in the exquisitely-carefully-crafted-ramble you saw over at AE... did that one not jump out at you? Does it not make sense, both the message to fringe-fighters, and also the message to BarleyBannocks? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- 74, my comment in David’s page was not a “reply” to your comment; I was addressing David’s earlier comment about “reliable sources to the contrary”.
- There’s no need to elaborate further on your statement on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Barleybannocks, I really just wanted to know the general thrust of it. I asked because I was initially flabbergasted that you seemed to be calling for Barleybannocks to be banned. I see now that I had misinterpreted your meaning.
- I don’t (presently) intend to post a statement on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Barleybannocks. I don’t think it would do any good. I know that may sound a bit defeatist, but it’s not. I simply think that Barney, Red Pen, Roxy, and Vzaak may have better luck if I don’t get involved. Some admins seem to have a grudge against IP editors, and I think my presence could actually hurt more than it helps. After seeing how they treated you I’m pretty sure that I made the right decision.
- Oh, and I’ve changed my mind about Vzaak since last we spoke. I still think he’s a
redactedof course, but I no longer think that he’s trying to prolong the conflict. He also seems to be quite enthusiastic about swatting the tumble-trolls that have popped up. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)- Yes, I know you were speaking at David... that speech is what I was pointing to, as the mental hurdle of anger, which you would have to overcome, if you want to understand what I say. I've redacted your phallus-allusion 76, sorry about the breach of talkiquette. WP:NPA applies, and you have trouble with that. Your inability to understand why David or Vzaak (or anybody for that matter) act as they do, is no excuse to cast names. You've seen what Sandstein said on Barney's talkpage; please take it to heart, and be WP:NICE. That said, knowing something about cultural groupings, I absolutely feel your pain at being attacked in Real Life by folks who ridicule your work, and I'm sorry that happened... even more sorry that it *happens* in the ongoing-grammatical-tense. On average, people suck, and life is not fair. Still, two wrongs don't make a right; you are here to improve the encyclopedia, and I am here to improve the encyclopedia. But we must improve it collaboratively, not adversarially. Quit lashing out. There is a thing called WP:IMAGINE which I highly recommend, and it applies heavily to the Sheldrake page. Remember that there are only 30k active editors on enWiki, out of 500M readers -- nobody here is "on average" methinks.
- Anyhoo, zero admins have treated me badly, with regard to Sheldrake, or with regard to any other stuff for that matter. I was blocked once, unrelated to Sheldrake, but it was a good-faith mistake by the blocking-admin, and quickly cleared up. In fact, one of the fringe-fighters came to my rescue, that day, and it was much appreciated. If *you've* been treated unfairly by an admin, well, let me know, with a diff, seriously. There's plenty of admins who still believe that wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, including several I'm friendly with. Agree that the wikiCulture nowadays *tends* to slot all anons into a low-caste position, and some pseudonym-using editors assume the worst... but aside from why-do-you-not-have-an-account sort of questions (which i answer the same as you and jps -- for "philosophical reasons"), and stupid bohts with their not-very-well-tested regex, I've had it easy.
- Oh, and I’ve changed my mind about Vzaak since last we spoke. I still think he’s a
- I'm just astonished that somebody expects 74s rambles to make some sort of sense! --Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Don't worry, Roxy, 76 was just trying to get another bang for lunch, their actual expectations seem clear from their inter. p.s. I still recommend you to take a gander at my oxygen-of-publicity novella on your talkpage, when we last spoke; perhaps with the passage of time, you will find it more illuminating. If it is too hard to read in the glare of the pixel-production-device, try printing it out, and sit by the fire with some earl grey (mmhhhmmmmmm) or whatever you prefer. I can guarantee you will find my advice illuminating that way, either metaphorically when you catch my drift about what Sheldrake's bluff-strategy in the November Bekoff interview, or literally when you give up, and fling the offensive pages into the fire. Double-win! :-) Anyhoo, don't forget to dress warmly. Stop back any time, if you'd rather the bitesize version of my oxygen-advice... but just like I ask of 76, please cut-n-paste the specific sentence where you lost the thread of the logic, so that I can work incrementally to improve your grok. p.p.s. Congratulations on moving into the top ten list. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm just astonished that somebody expects 74s rambles to make some sort of sense! --Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
“Just trying to get another bang for lunch, their actual expectations seem clear from their inter”?!?! What the hell happened to all your talk of assuming good faith 74? I came here because after reading your statement I thought that you might have switched sides and I wanted to hear it from the horse’s mouth.
“BarleyBannocks, like vzaak, is a wikipedia-beginner and pure-WP:SPA”
- -74, explorer in the further reaches of miscommunication
“BarleyBannocks simply doesn't understand”
- -74, who thinks it’s not what you say, but how much you say
“WP:FRINGE applies to the theory of morphic resonance”
- -74, the only man I’ve ever encountered who got his statement on WP:AE deleted by an admin due to its inanity
“BarleyBannocks does not understand the subtle nature of WP:FRINGE”
- -74, who once successfully contributed 62.8% of the content on Talk:Rupert Sheldrake
I think you will have to excuse me if I, after reading the encouraging comments above, allowed my optimism to get the better of me. If I had come here to insult you, then by God, you would have known it because SUBTLETY IS NOT MY STRONG SUIT!
74, don’t play dumb about me and David. You know the relevant history. David insulted Red Pen and me, I told David off, and then Vzaak attacked me out of a redacted desire to stay on David’s good side. You know perfectly well that Red Pen and Barney have edited Sheldrake in good faith, and that David’s accusations against them are both serious and untrue. I take false accusations seriously, and I can WP:IMAGINE that Barney and Red Pen would be pretty pissed off that they’ve been falsely accused of bullying. David has used his talk page to attack other editors. He has even used an illustration to do it. David’s slinging of serous accusations at good faith editors is beyond the pale. You talk of WP:NICE, and good people, and civility but you’re not judging David by his actions. David may not apologize, but at least I can say that I spoke for what was right.
That said, while I’m here I might as well try asking you to reconsider your position on fringe topics. 74, I think that what you’re failing to do is distinguish between “minority scientific viewpoints” and “anti-scientific viewpoints”. Alan Feduccia’s hypothesis about the origin of birds (appears) to be a minority scientific viewpoint. It’s apparently based on embryological data. And while I don’t think I agree with Feduccia, I think that his hypothesis appears to be a scientific hypothesis. If I ever get my hands on a bunch of ostrich eggs then I can recreate his study, and maybe I can prove him wrong.
Sheldrake, on the other hand, redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted Anyone who has ever passed a high school level physics course knows that conservation of energy is the truest thing that ever was true, yet Sheldrake’s distain for science has reached such magnitude that he has denied even that.
74, if you’re really concerned about minority viewpoints on Wikipedia then please try to distinguish between those that are scientific and those that are anti-scientific. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- I do assume good faith... I know you're here trying to improve wikipedia... and even on David's page you were *trying* to improve wikipedia... but that doesn't mean I can't tell when somebody is canvassing for votes, which is what you were doing, hence my WP:BEANS response. So yes, I do know you came here hoping I had switched sides (bang-for-lunch is shorthand slang for bangvote-for-the-lunchmob), but I admit, I got a happy laugh at your 'NOT MY STRONG SUIT' ... it is funny, because it is true. :-) Your limitation is that you are a straight shooter, you want to call a spade a spade, both mainspace & talkpage, plus you are sure of yourself (by extension thus of biology). I like you quite a lot, as a matter of fact; bet we'd get along swimmingly in the real-o-verse. And those qualities are all *good* ones to have... just sometimes problematic on-wiki. *My* limitation is TLDR, and like you, I recognize it, but like you, it's damn hard for me to overcome. I'm a'trying, though.
- Anyways, I appreciate your asking me to reconsider my position on fringe-topics, and on wikipedia's supporting minority viewpoints... but you simply do not understand my *on-wiki* position. This is because, you think in terms of sides and which one I am on and are angry at those on the wrong side. My goal here, on-wiki, was to see if the sides could be eliminated and instead of editors spending time&energy jockeying to ban/censor/flood/driveAway/fuckWith "the other side" instead folks could sit down, religiously stick to the sources, and reflect what the sources say.
blah Coyne blah WP:WALLOFTEXT bla Bekoff bla WP:JIMBOANNOUNCESWORLDWIDEPIXELSHORTAGEDECLARESBYTERATIONING bbbbblllllaaaaaaaahhhhhh it's funny because it's true
|
|---|
|
- I argue for sticking to the sources instead of fighting amongst ourselves because as wikipedians we gotta stick together not break into feuding factions. I'm against on-wiki sides, because I'm *for* not driving editors away (for encouraging editors who make good-faith contributions regardless of whether anybody else here agrees with their POV). That's pillar two and pillar four, working to keep wikipedia 'fair' and fun. SOMETIMES THAT MEANS A FEW SENTENCES IN MAINSPACE WILL BE OBJECTIVELY WRONG. But it is a pure-dee fact to say "according to Bekoff PhD the well-known biologist Sheldrake has a groundbreaking theory and wishes Jaytee was in Bekoff's new book WhyDogsHump"[100] and then turn right around and give another pure-dee fact by saying "according to Coyne PhD author of WhyEvolutionIsTrue the pseudoscientist Sheldrake has crazy ideas and Coyne's campaign to put the TEDx talk in a special time-out room for misbehaving woomeisters worked"[101].
- Saying one, and not the other, is picking sides, and permitting the picking of sides is itself inherently bad for wikipedia. Sure sure, WP:MEDRS is a necessary evil, but still evil because it makes wikipedia pick sids (science-based medicine trumps snake oil... but simultaneously big monopolistic pharma also trumps the lone genius little guy). In the long run — decades — I think that the real-o-verse 'sides' with objective truth backing them up, someday *will* become reflected in wikipedia mainspace, and that staying religiously NPOV while we wait for the correct historical moment (a truth-based society not a spin-based society), will speed the achievement of that moment. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- p.s. David insulted Red Pen and me. (mhmmm... you two perceived it that way I agree... and perception *does* count in this case).
my take on the rest... not trying to play dumb... just do not see the sit as a binary proposition
|
|---|
|
I told David off (yup... instead of taking the high moral ground which is what you ought to have done per WP:ROPE). Vzaak attacked me out of a cowardly desire to stay on David’s good side. (Nope... he's no coward and he didn't "attack" you that I saw... but he drove you off with a misreading of policy identical to JzG's misreading of policy because for strategic reasons he wants no fringe-fighters slinging mud... Vzaak's approach is 'just-short-of-war' SPOV===NPOV editing... he wants the ban-proceedings to go quickly and quietly that's all.) You know perfectly well that Red Pen and Barney have edited Sheldrake in good faith (true and true and true... correct assessment) David’s accusations against them are both serious and untrue. (the accusations are serious... and I don't believe either trpod or barney are *trying* to be bullies... they're just trying to silence anybody that frustrates them... which includes David... and it is absolutely positively true that David *perceived* their efforts as bullying... just as you perceived David to be "attacking you" and more importantly attacking your "side"). |
- Nutshell: because *sides* are permitted, I felt attacked as soon as I arrived on the page, and bullied off the page (that's not why I left... just tactics in the long-game of strategy... but the feeling was no mirage). Same feeling for you, 76, albeit aimed at different players (and you have a similar head for tactics). Same for David, except not tactical whatsoever. Barney, when his frustrations eventually get the better of him and Sandstein follows through on the warning, will feel the same way as David. Vzaak and jps and Iantresman were *already* acting tactically, before they even arrived on the page. Anyway, to repeat one last time, even a busted watch is correct twice a day... the only solution I see is to *not* permit sides, or at least, not permit *adversarial* sides ... the rock of pillar four we shalt not rubberize, unto pillar two we shalt all stay 100% true. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- p.p.s. Sheldrake claims to have done drugs only when he was a mainstream scientist... but he disliked them... and so he switched to transcendental meditation in the late 1960s or early 1970s, as a non-drug-induced mechanism for exploring the mechanics of consciousness, prior to leaving his U.Cambridge teaching-n-researcher slot. He is popular amongst the new-age-crowd, but not himself a new-ager; see commentary by TRPoD on the talkpage to that effect, archive 11 or archive 12, plus the Sheldrake quotes I found about sufism. Or not. :-) Cause who cares? You were just trying to blast him a good one, eh? But I gotta redact you, he is a BLP, gotta protect the server farm. I caught your drift though, the druggie-swipe was just a minor point. You could make your point as well, just sticking to Coyne and Maddox, though, right? Right. Take it easy 76, feel free to drop in any time. I won't take your side, on-wiki, but I enjoy your NOT SUBTLE approach to the world. :-) TFIW. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Please excuse my belated reply; I’ve been preoccupied with holiday-related activities and have had little time for Wikipedia lately.
74, did you seriously just attempt to deny the existence of objective reality? David did, IN FACT, insult Red Pen and me.[[102]] I did, IN FACT, tell him off for doing so.[[103]] And Vzaak did, IN FACT, attack me unprovoked.[[104]] Those are things that happened. They are reality. Factual reality is not some subjective occurrence that you can try to spin-doctor however you like. I did not simply “perceive” it that way, and your flat out denial of facts is not in any way equal to my diff supported account of events. At this point your arguments have degenerated into pure sophistry. You are trying to suggest to me that I only “felt” insulted when someone really did insult me, while simultaneously trying to argue that your “feelings of being bullied” are valid, when you were really just prevented from pushing POV. You have made an argument that is the intellectual equivalent of saying “well you shouldn’t have assaulted his fist with your face”. 74, you attempt at victim blaming is both insulting and a lie. I see no point in in continuing this conversation any further. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Uhhh... zeroth things first, WP:DEADLINE applies as always, glad you are enjoying the holidays, and first things first, *I* don't feel bullied by you nor TRPoD, but David did, and does. You and I never interacted until you had already *left* the article-talkpage. Anyhoo, I quite truthfully don't see you as a bully: I see you as a provocateur, here to 'startle the boundary' of pillar four, and drive off people that disagree with your WP:SPOV. It's a fine line, but the key is that you take no enjoyment from the provocations; bullies like their bullying, but for you it is a duty and something you see as a tactical necessity, not for lulz. You are doing what you think is best, and upholding a code of morality, and it is hard to fault you for that. As I say, in real life we'd get along methinks. As for not replying promptly, I have a different excuse; I didn't notice your reply until today. (Didn't notice JzG had banned Alfonzo until today either.)
- As for your substantive points, I believe quite fully in objective reality; feelings have no impact on it, neither yours nor David's (nor mine nor TRPoD's for that matter). Feelings exist, they sometimes govern behavior, but feelings don't shape objective reality. Actions do of course, so it's a fine philosophical line, but we're on the same philosophical page about objective reality not being subject to anybody's feelings one way or the other.
objective reality in the form of direct inline quotations, with full context... plus a wee bit of annotation, feel free to ignore those bits
|
|---|
|
Tale of vzaak trying to 'compromise' by putting Sheldrake-is-a-scientist into the first sentence... albeit accidently retaining the exact same three inline cites for 'scientist' which they had been using for 'parapsychologist' the day before. David later tries to mention that Sheldrake has a PhD in biochemistry, so vzaak then makes a manual-of-style argument (sigh). 76 jumps into battle, sensing weakness among the fringe-fighters, and worried they will fold.
Continued tale of vzaak trying to keep scientist and/or biologist out of the first sentence. Roxy, Barney^3, and 76
The tale of fringe-fighter tactics versus fringe-fighter strategy. After this, 76 stops contributing to the article-talkpage, but shows up from time to time on user-talkpages of David, myself, Barney^3, and probably others.
For the record, 76 is entirely correct about Sheldrake claiming that morphological development is directed by telepathy(-like) stuff. I would quibble that Sheldrake is *most* known nowadays for said claim (Sheldrake *was* most known for that specific claim in 1981 and possibly even as late as 1987... thereafter other claims made by Sheldrake had become more well-known methinks), but still. Also for the record, vzaak's quote of WP:NOTFORUM was wrong on the merits, the correct pillar 76 purposely violated was WP:NICE. Vzaak specifically needed 76 out of the way, so that the SPI case vzaak was building against Philosophyfellow (and various other cases against other editors) would be clear-cut, methinks. 76's tactics of attacking the other side directly, were hindering vzaak's strategy of attacking the other side via noticeboards, in other words. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC) |
- If you wish to grasp my analysis of the reality of your diffs, I'm happy to try and show you, but as you PERCEIVE only that I simply *must* be a liar, a sophist, a reality-denial-subjectivist, a spin-doctor, and (gasp!) anti-fact ... to include the
lawfact of COE and yourperceptionfact that *David* is the real really real bully in this picture ... kinda therefore would be a pointless waste of pixels to do so in advance. Likely you'll satisfy yourself that since *you* provided a diff from the fight you picked with David, and all *I* provided was a list of the fighting words you just used to try and pick a fight with me (plus the full text of your earlier diffs for all to see), that means you wwwwiiiinnnnn. Still, you seem unable to resist getting in the last word, so I extend the offer, which stands indefinitely: if you wish to see where your perceptions of the diffs above fail to match objective reality, if you wish me to give your premises a little spot-check, feel free to ask.
- Anyhoo, I stand by my original assessment. You're a straight shooter, you have a clear understanding of Sheldrake, and a clear understanding of biology, but you're treating wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND to further your WP:SPOV, and you see anybody that disagrees with your WP:SPOV as an enemy who must be driven away, pillar four be damned. This is not because you misunderstand that WP:NICE is policy, but simply because you don't *care* that pillar four is policy, you are more interested in righting great wrongs, how dare those cold fusionists and telepathy mongers pollute wikipedia, they offend you, just like those mean old creation science folks offends you. I don't suggest you give up your beliefs; I don't suggest you change your opinions. I insist you treat pillar four like a rock here in the wikiverse (especially when you disagree with the other editors... and doubly-especially when you perceive some slight... stick to the high moral ground). Further, I insist that you stick to what the WP:RS actually say... and as far as I can tell from non-mainspace editing, you have the same problem as the other fringe-fighters on the article (if a WP:SPOV or even just one true Scotsman disagrees with a source — no matter the field of inquiry — then that source can be deleted entirely from wikipedia using WP:POLL). Expect I'll see you around, I hope under improved circumstances. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Talk Back
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Clover1991 (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I apologise for the delay. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Translate an article from German?
Which one? If it's a technical topic, I may not be the right person. And I have a lot on my plate right now - not least, trying to improve 2 rejected AfC submissions in the hopes of their getting passed next time, and Yule - but you do know I have been known to do that, right? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's a short article on deWiki, so the quality should already be pretty good, and the machine-translation is likely to get me most of the way there. Clover is going to make an AfC submission for it, and then I will pull the pieces over. Once we're done, then I'll have you do a side-by-side, should only take you fifteen minutes or so. (And yes, you were the speaker of German I had in mind... Kudpung also sprachen sie deutsche as well as Roskinde but they are a little bit wikiStress'd now concerning AfC stuff.) I will figure out where this project is. p.s. It is a firm that manufacturers street-cleaners, those big trucks with the spinning-spring-steel-bristles underneath, pretty straightforward. Thanks for the offer, appreciate it. p.p.s. Yes, Yngvadottir, you & y'all's yule yucks, yearly, why, why, yesterday's yodel, yeah! 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I won't offer more than I can execute and I'm headed to bed now - but beware of Google translate for any language involving endings; the stupid thing seems to ignore them. Talk to you later. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wel, Englis work jus fin withou th ending letter whic mean googl probabl wil hav n problem whatsoeve. :-) Left you some NYT over on the marimba's AfC page. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- (watching) beware of Google translations for whatever, latest was "highly dramatic soprano", - I can look next year, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, chuckling out loud ... (do the kiddies say COL for that? hmmmmm) ... do you know, Gerda, when I tried to think of people who were from Germany, or who knew how to speak German, that your name did not even once enter into my considerations? Because I consider you to be from wikiCriminaland, a true patriot of that nation for certain, and assumed you therefore only spoke wikiCriminalese. :-) You have my heartfelt apologies for stereotyping you, and I'll try to remember that you once used to have a homeland ... BEFORE YOU LEFT THE PATH OF ALL THAT IS GOOD AND TRUE IN THIS WORLD, and began rampaging through the wikivillages, spreading your infoboxen terror amongst the terrified wikivillagers. <sigh> Anyhoo, seriously speaking, sure you can help too, if you like. Watch out for Yngvadottir, though, they're one of those "rouge" admins that sees red every time somebody fails to heed the five pillars. Plus there are rumors that I think they may just control most of the Scandinavian military forces. Thanks for improving wikipedia, friends. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- (( my awesomely-grammatical English machine-translated into msft™ germaneze™ )) OK, lachen laut... (sagen die Kiddies dafür COL? Hmmmmm)... weißt du, Gerda, als ich versuchte, denken Sie an Menschen, die kamen aus Deutschland, oder wer wusste wie man Deutsch, sprechen, die Ihren Namen nicht ein einziges Mal in meiner Ausführungen eingegeben haben? Denn ich halte Sie für bestimmte von WikiCriminaland, ein echter Patriot dieser Nation zu sein und davon ausgegangen, Sie damit nur sprach-WikiCriminalese dass. Sie haben meine aufrichtigen Entschuldigungen für Klischees Sie, und ich werde versuchen, nicht vergessen, dass Sie einst eine Heimat zu haben... BEVOR SIE links den Pfad der das ist gut und wahr IN dieser Welt, und begann tobten durch die Wikivillages Verbreitung Ihrer Infobox Terror unter der Angst Wikivillagers. (seufz) Wie auch immer, ernst sprechen, sicher können Sie auch helfen, wenn du magst. Achten Sie auf Yngvadóttir, aber sie sind einer dieser "Rouge"-Admins, die rot sieht jedes Mal, wenn jemand ausfällt, die fünf Säulen Beachtung zu schenken. Außerdem gibt es Gerüchte, dass ich denke, dass sie die meisten der skandinavischen Streitkräfte nur steuern können. Vielen Dank für die Verbesserung der Wikipedia, Freunde. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- (( msft™ germaneze™ machine-translated into msft™ englisheze™ )) OK, laugh out loud... (tell the kiddies that COL? Hmmmmm)... know you, Gerda, when I tried, you think of people who came from Germany or who knew how to German, speak, that not once in my speech have entered your name? Because I you for certain WikiCriminaland, a true patriot of this nation consider to be assumed, and you just said WikiCriminalese that. You have my sincere apologies for clichés, and I'll try to remember that you once to have a home... BEFORE she left is the path of the good and true IN this world, and began spreading your infobox raged through the Wikivillages terror under the fear of Wikivillagers. (sigh) As always, seriously speaking, sure you can also help if you like. Watch Yngvadóttir, but they are one of those "Rouge"-Admins, that red looks everytime when someone fails to respect the five pillars. Also, there are rumors that I think that they can control most of the Scandinavian armed forces only. Thank you very much for the improvement of Wikipedia, friends. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Owwww. Reminds me of when I discussed something on Skype with someone in German and Klingon. Thanks for the refs about the marimba/vibraphone gentleman; I've used some of them and hope to use more. Speaking of editors having a bad experience at AfC, Hafspajen is concerned about Freedombulls, although their article did get accepted. Perhaps you can offer some words of demystification/encouragement? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- (watching) beware of Google translations for whatever, latest was "highly dramatic soprano", - I can look next year, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wel, Englis work jus fin withou th ending letter whic mean googl probabl wil hav n problem whatsoeve. :-) Left you some NYT over on the marimba's AfC page. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I won't offer more than I can execute and I'm headed to bed now - but beware of Google translate for any language involving endings; the stupid thing seems to ignore them. Talk to you later. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
redacted self-referential humour faces are often seen in public places
I see my name in several of the recent tables on your talk page. I'm happy to see it there, but I don't grok WTF the different columns in the tables are. Nor do I grok why my name is always in such a small font. My evil twin imagines that my presence in the table, and maybe even its tiny font, are because the forces of "COE is a fact not a law or principle" have me in their sights because I use such an odd keyboard to express my tzitzit views. Lou Sander (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Tzit, tsk, tzit, your 'fringe' is showing, unicomp-fanboi! :-) The tables were put together haphazardly... there is a key, but it is buried in the middle somewhere. Tinyfont means that you expressed the desire to leave the sheldrake article, then did. This is a fuzzy category; Vzaak expressed the desire to leave wikipedia, when he got the uber-strictly-defined-count-of-reverts-warning from bbb23, but did not seem to slow down his activity, so I left him in the normal font. 76 left the talkpage under duress, but they aren't in the top-fifteen edit-count. CraigWeiler left wikipedia entirely, but again, not in the top-15-of-all-time, and zero in December. LouSander has more edits to the talkpage in December than someone who has actually left... three for David, one for me... maybe you should be back in regular font? with a footnote perhaps. I'll add the categories you and roxy requested, feel free to directly edit yourself into the place which best reflects your status, if you don't like where I slotted you. HTH.
- p.s. Adjusted your existing commentary, to correct for the fact that col-names were not listed, and you guessed wrong. This boils down to a policy dispute, over whether wikipedia should contain articles about Islam/etc, or instead only articles debunking Islam/etc, with dissenting RSes elided as not *really* reliable. All the frustration and battle-mentality results directly from that policy-dispute; the poisonous atmosphere (thanks in large part but not entirely due to the tumblemen) makes a calm discussion of policy very difficult to even have. If I make no progress with Erik, I'll try Tnkia(sp). 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I replied
Hello. You have a new message at ErikHaugen's talk page. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
+1
- and I left a message at the Gerbic talk page ;) --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
replay on SORCER
Hello. I provided You answers on Talk:SORCER Pawelpacewicz (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Freddy Fuller
I'm a bit confused. The deleted article at AdsMadeEZ created by a User talk:Frederick S Fuller is hardly the kind of thing that the genuine Freddy Fuller is likely to write, so maybe your well intended comments are on a page he's never likely to see. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Kudpung, yes, I'm not sure what the connection is there, but the User talk:Frederick S Fuller was included in the wall that Freddy posted over at WT:WER. Maybe it is some kind of endorsement-by-the-famous-boxer thing? I cannot see the deleted contents, but maybe you can watchlist just in case... if there is no connection, possibly their username is security-compromised? Anyways, I left the standard you-can-try-again-using-AfC-with-AnneTikukoJulieDavid-helpful-folks, just in case.
- Anyhoo, it looks like Freddy has been trying to get this simple thing done since at least September... your idea of a "landing page" is a good one. Why not work on what it should look like? We can turn it into a welcome-template, and then someday, an edit-filter. #1. welcome to wikipedia, here are the five pillars. #2. if you are working on an article about you or your employer or your band or your friend/family/coworkers/etc, please use AfC and mention COI. #3. If there is already an article about you/etc that needs corrections see WP:TEAHOUSE. And so on. HTH, thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Talk back
Hey, 74! I asked you few question in my talk page, could you please go and check it! Thanks in advance!--Clover1991 (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, 74
I'm a friend of Clover. I will help her to translate the Hako page. Do you know how it should be done exactly?--Maartje77 (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Nice to meet you Maartje, appreciate you helping out. I've also found some folks who are interested in helping, Yngvadottir and Gerda Arendt, when they have time. I suggest this.
- please create Hako in the WP:AfC queue,
- with just one sentence of content to start with ("Hako is a manufacturer of street sweeping equipment.")
- Then, post the URL here, so that everybody can start to work on it,
- translating sentences from the German version on deWiki,
- verifying sources,
- checking the licenses for the photo-uploads (deWiki shares photos via Commons methinks but we should make sure), and so on.
- Does that sound good? Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds good, I will be on next year. Typically you don't need all details here, a stub is fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
machine translation
|
|---|
Lead fka Lede.
Die Hako GmbH ist ein Unternehmen für Reinigungstechnik The Hako GmbH is a company for cleaning technology
und ultraleichte Nutzfahrzeuge für diese Zwecke mit Sitz in Bad Oldesloe. and ultra light commercial vehicles for this purpose with headquarters in Bad Oldesloe.
It was founded on December 24, 1948. Sie wurde am 24. Dezember 1948 gegründet.
The name is derived from HAch & son Nazi KO. Der Name ist von Hans Koch & Sohn abgeleitet.
Infoboxen.
Legal form GmbH Rechtsform [[Gesellschaft_mit_beschr%C3%A4nkter_Haftung_(Deutschland) | GmbH]]
Foundation 1948 Gründung 1948
Seat Bad Oldesloe Sitz [[Bad Oldesloe]]
Line Mario Schreiber (Chair), Uwe burn, Matthias Wolf Leitung Mario Schreiber (Vors.), Uwe Brenne, Matthias Wolf
Staff 1166 (2009) [1] Mitarbeiter 1166 (2009) [1]
Sales 197,3 Million EUR (2009) [1] Umsatz 197,3 Mio. EUR (2009) [1]
Balance sheet EUR 100.9 million (2009) [1] Bilanzsumme 100,9 Mio. EUR (2009) [1]
Industry Machinery and vehicle construction Branche Maschinen- und Fahrzeugbau
Products Cleaning technology, ultra-light commercial vehicles Produkte Reinigungstechnik, ultraleichte Nutzfahrzeuge
Website Hako-website http://www.hako.com/ Website Hako-Website
History.
in 1924 invented Hans Koch in Mecklenburg the first small tiller in the world, 1924 erfand Hans Koch in Mecklenburg die erste Kleinmotorhacke der Welt,
the so called di-Mo HA. After the founding of the company in 1948 in Pinneberg, die sog. Di-Mo-Ha. Nach der Gründung der Firma 1948 in Pinneberg
the company began with the Assembly and production of hoes and two system milling. [2] begann das Unternehmen mit der Montage und Serienfertigung von Motorhacken und Einachser-Systemfräsen.[2]
in 1956 the company acquired a plot of land in Bad Oldesloe on the Lübeckerstraße; 1956 erwarb die Firma ein Grundstück in Bad Oldesloe an der Lübecker Straße;
in the 1970s, Hako moved into the industrial area on the Hamburgerstrasse, in den siebziger Jahren zog Hako in das Gewerbegebiet an der Hamburger Straße,
where today is located the headquarters. wo sich heute der Unternehmenssitz befindet.
In addition, a technology centre exists in Trappenkamp . Zudem existiert in Trappenkamp ein Technologiezentrum.
Hako belongs to the Possehl- group. Hako gehört zur Possehl-Gruppe.
in 1998, Hako took over the shares of the German subsidiary at Multicar. [3] 1998 übernahm Hako die Anteile der Deutschen Beteiligungsgesellschaft an Multicar.[3]
Products.
Today is the Hako is one of the world's leading manufacturers of Professional machines Heute ist die Hako einer der weltweit führenden Hersteller von professionellen Maschinen
for interior cleaning, exterior cleaning and facility maintenance. [2] für Innenreinigung, Außenreinigung und Anlagenpflege.[2]
Includes the machines in graduated sizes and power ratings: Zu den Maschinen gehören in abgestuften Größen- und Leistungsklassen:
Polishing machines, Carpet cleaning equipment, Poliermaschinen, Teppichreinigungsgeräte,
Dust - and water cleaner, Scrubbing machines, Staub- und Wassersauger, Scheuersaugmaschinen,
Sweeping machines, City cleaning machines, Kehrmaschinen, Cityreinigungsmaschinen,
single-axis motorized equipment, Small tractors (Hakotrac), einachsige motorisierte Arbeitsgeräte, Kleintraktoren (Hakotrac),
and Electric tow tractors. und Elektroschlepper.
Cleaning and care products for the professional cleaning of the building be added. Hinzu kommen Reinigungs- und Pflegemittel für die professionelle Gebäudereinigung.
The worldwide distribution of the Schleswig-Holstein companies Der weltweite Vertrieb des schleswig-holsteinischen Unternehmen
is carried out by about a dozen of its own companies erfolgt durch rund ein Dutzend eigene Gesellschaften
as well as General importers in over 60 countries around the world sowie durch Generalimporteure in über 60 Ländern der Welt,
with the Hako-Werke GmbH as main of the Hako group. [2] mit der Hako-Werke GmbH als Hauptunternehmen der Hako-Gruppe.[2]
Structure. Two branches include the Hako GmbH. Zur Hako GmbH gehören zwei Zweigniederlassungen.
The Multicar branch located in waltershausen the Hako GmbH Die Zweigniederlassung Multicar befindet sich in Waltershausen Die Hako GmbH
has been there since 1998 majority shareholder. ist dort seit 1998 Mehrheitsgesellschafter.
The branch of the Havelland engineering is located in Glindow. Die Zweigniederlassung Havelländische Maschinenbau befindet sich in Glindow.
Still, the company holds shares in six subsidiaries. Weiterhin hält die Gesellschaft Anteile an sechs Tochtergesellschaften.
See also [[de:Hakorennen]]
External links
Commons: Hako -collection of images, videos and audio files http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hako_vehicles Sammlung von Bildern, Videos und Audiodateien
Wikibooks: tractor Lexicon: Hako -learning and teaching materials http://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Traktorenlexicon:_Hako Traktorenlexikon: Lern- und Lehrmaterialien
Sources
# Search in the electronic Federal Gazette Hako Werke: annual accounts as of December 31, 2009
# Florian Langenscheidt, Bernd Venohr (ed.): encyclopedia of German world market leaders. The pinnacle of German companies in Word and image. German standards editions 2010, ISBN 978-3-86936-221-2.
# Berliner Zeitung of 31 July 1998: Hako wants to create more jobs at Multicar
Quellen
# Suche im elektronischen Bundesanzeiger Hako Werke: Jahresabschluss zum 31. Dezember 2009 [https://www.ebundesanzeiger.de/]
# Florian Langenscheidt[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian_Langenscheidt], Bernd Venohr[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernd_Venohr] (Hrsg.):
Lexikon der deutschen Weltmarktführer. Die Königsklasse deutscher Unternehmen in Wort und Bild. Deutsche Standards Editionen, Köln 2010,
ISBN 978-3-86936-221-2.[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:ISBN-Suche/9783869362212]
# Berliner Zeitung[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berliner_Zeitung] vom 31. Juli 1998: Hako will bei Multicar mehr Stellen schaffen
[http://www.berliner-zeitung.de/archiv/tyll-necker--angebot-wird-mit-uebernahme-erweitert-hako-will-bei-multicar-mehr-stellen-schaffen,10810590,9461016.html]
Categories:
Companies (Stormarn district) [[Kategorie:Unternehmen (Kreis Stormarn)]]
Machinery and equipment manufacturers [[Kategorie:Maschinen- und Gerätehersteller]]
Bad Oldesloe [[Kategorie:Bad Oldesloe]]
Tractor manufacturer [[Kategorie:Traktorenhersteller]]
|
Useful.
- (ref,name="ebundesanzeiger") Suche im elektronischen Bundesanzeiger Hako Werke: Jahresabschluss zum 31. Dezember 2009 (/ref)
- (ref,name="LV2010") de:Florian Langenscheidt, de:Bernd Venohr (Hrsg.): Lexikon der deutschen Weltmarktführer. Die Königsklasse deutscher Unternehmen in Wort und Bild. Deutsche Standards Editionen, Köln 2010, ISBN 978-3-86936-221-2. (/ref)
- (ref) de:Berliner Zeitung vom 31. Juli 1998: Hako will bei Multicar mehr Stellen schaffen (/ref)
- http://www.hako.com , 6 brands + 5 factories + 15 branches + 25 EU dealers + 20 intl dealers,[106] , dealers [107][108] , brands [109][110][111][112] , all per WP:ABOUTSELF
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hako_vehicles , WP:EYECANDY , deWiki uses five.[113][114][115][116][117]
- See also de:Hakkoren , in German
- https://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Traktorenlexikon:_Hako , training manuals , in German
Maybe useful.
- Newspaper; note that these are mostly about a single local dealer-slash-acquisition (not sure which), and thus not *directly* about the entire Hako conglomerate.[118][119][120] Hoovers of the dealer-slash-acquisition.[121]
- University.[122]
- Court.[123]
- Misc.[124][125][126]
- Biz mags.[127][128][129][130]
- Shows.[131][132]
- Awards.[133]
- Patents.[134][135]
- Market data.[136][137]
- Government, prolly purchasers.[138]
Also, added a couple quotes to the article. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Happy Holiday's
Freedombulls (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thank you for your effort on my page :-)
Gr Barry --Freedombulls (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Happy Holiday
Clover1991 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Merry Christmas and a happy new year! Thanks for helping on Wikipedia:)--Clover1991 (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
New change of DUROMAC AFC
Hello, 74! Merry Christmas! I did few changes in my AFC page of DUROMAC article. Please check it and feel free to tell me if there is something I still need to be improved. Thanks a lot !--Clover1991 (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Merry Christmas for 4711
|
Happy Holidays | |
| Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season. Hope are having a wonderful time! Yes, little Bob is a weasel. Hafspajen (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas for 4711
|
|
Happy Holidays | |
| Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season. Hope are having a wonderful time! Yes, little Bob is a weasel. Hafspajen (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC) |
- How very clever of you. Sometimes, an obelisk is just an obelisk, but Freud might never say so. For him everything was something else ( I guess I am getting just as silly as the editor whom disruptive edits I was tracing). Hafspajen (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- There was some famous quote of his, when he was talking to some students, and pulled out a huge phallic-shaped cigar for himself, and one of the students asked him (possibly innocently but presumably mischeivously) about the deeper mental significance in the unconscious mind that would cause a male to develop an interest in cigar-smoking. Freud said, sometimes a cigar, is just a cigar. :-) I don't like cigars, but I like trees. Indoor trees are a particularly extravagant idea. Good practice for a space-faring civilization to get into, methinks. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Ready to submit
Hey,74! I just upload DUROMAC logo, ready to submit! Do I need to only keep the article part or I can also keep the comments, rough-draft and analysis of sources then I submit it together with DUROMAC article? --Clover1991 (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, cool. The logo should be licensed as "fair use" NFCC because it is a symbol of duromac, and wikipedians cannot remix/change/reuse it; did you do it thataway? (There might be some AfC rule against keeping the NFCC logo ... if it gets deleted don't worry, we'll just re-upload later once the article is in mainspace.)
- As for the commentary, definitely leave it in there, it is meant to help the reviewers understand the WP:N and WP:NOTEWORTHY stuff. When approved, the final-draft article will then be moved to mainspace, and the person doing the move will hide away all the comments, at that time. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, when I upload the picture, I didn't see there is " fair use", may I know where I can find it? I only choose" this is my own photo" and nothing more.--Clover1991 (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I tried to upload picture again, but I only find three different licensed:
- Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 (legal code)
- Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (legal code)
- Creative Commons CC0 Waiver (release all rights, like public domain: legal code)
May I ask you which one I need to choose? Thanks! --Clover1991 (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have never done a logo-upload, so I don't know how. :-) It is none of those three, though; fair use and NFCC cannot go through the uplaod-wizard, prolly. But you can ask at WP:TEAHOUSE and maybe somebody will help with the specifics. But as I said, I don't think AfC rules (or maybe Commons-rulz) permit use of trademarked logos in the AfC queue anyways, so we prolly have to wait until the article is in mainspace, before we upload, most likely. Here is the background you need to know.
- You cannot upload the duromac logo as your own photo; it is a trademarked symbol of duromac corp (sbn bhd) which means the owners of the corporation (your friend the CEO) have certain legal rights, enforced by the courts (in Malaysia and worldwide), to the name on the logo, and the 'look' of the logo. Nobody else can sell sweepers in Malaysia, and put the DUROMAC™ logo on them, for instance. Also, nobody can use a *similar* logo, such as the DVR0NAC™ logo... because it is too confusing, it will be too easy for bad guys to defraud customers (who think they are getting DUROMAC quality) and then to give the real DUROMAC a bad name in the market (which they don't deserve). So, governments protect the corporate logo with a special kind of legal rule, which differs from country to country.
- But what about wikipedia? Imagefiles uploaded to wikipedia are under pillar three, free as in freedom, just like text. Anybody can change the duromac article, right? Right. Anybody can even copy the duromac article, and put it on another website, as long as they give credit to wikipedia. What if you upload the duromac logo, and the BadGuys copy that logo to www.DVR0NAC.com? They can take people's credit cards over the internet, and promise to deliver the CityFant model 60 to your doorstep next week, for just USD$999, special sale! :-) That is a scam, right? How does the CEO of the real DUROMAC, and owner of the real www.DUROMAC.com, keep the bad guys from winning? Easy: they call up the Malaysian High Court (or something like that I don't know the details) and say, hey, judge, help me out, some bad guys are abusing my trademarked copyrighted logo. The judge tells the cops to stop the bad guys, and the cops call the webhost-n-ISPs where the badguys are running their scam, and suddenly "DVR0NAC" is deleted, and the badguys put in jail (or fined or whatever the laws are).
- So how can wikipedia have free-as-in-freedom content, which anybody can copy and put on their own website and modify if they want to, while at the same time showing the official DUROMAC logo in the official article about DUROMAC? The answer is called "fair use" and the wikipedia policy is called WP:NFCC. It is a special loophole in copyright/trademark/patent law, which allows some things (like logos) to be uploaded to media/educational sites (like en.wikipedia.org and commons.wikimedia.org). In other words, "fair use" is an exception to the usual rule. Usually, you can only upload photos that are *actually* your own photos, that you actually took, to wikipedia. If not your own, you have to get permission from the photographer, and they have to release their copyrighted material under CC-BY-SA and/or GFDL. What about the logo? Well, the CEO of DUROMAC *could* give you permission, and release their trademark and copyright on the logo... but that would mean the badguys could scam people! Bad idea. So, since the logo cannot be re-licensed as CC-BY-SA/GFDL, but we want the logo in wikipedia anyways, we upload it under the "fair use" provisions of United States (and WIPO also) laws. That way, we can have our cake, and eat it too.
- Anyways, this logo-uploading-work is complicated stuff... as you prolly realize by now :-) Don't worry, it will all work out in the end. I'll come to the file and help get it figured out, if nobody at the WP:TEAHOUSE is awake to help you. There is also some kind of helpdesk/refdesk, where somebody might have an answer for you, and there is a special questions-about-imagefiles noticeboard, but I forget what it is called. Anyways, start with the teahouse, and explain you are trying to upload a corporate logo, for an article in AfC, and accidentally just uploaded it as "own work" which is wrong. They'll prolly get you straightened out in a jiffy. Hope this helps. p.s. Also, mention that we uploaded two other photos, and give them the link of the AfC article, so they can check if those are properly licensed and such, while they are helping with the logo-upload-question. Thanks as always, let me know if this makes no sense. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
But we can figure all the logo stuff out, as time goes by. Submit the article for review, and leave a nice request on Tikuko's talkpage that we think we are ready once more. We can get the logo stuff worked out (and the Hako and Alama Flora and other articles finished up), while we wait for the second review of Duromac. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, and speaking of loose ends that we can work on while we wait for a reviewer, what about this? "...for the first woman in the world[clarification needed] to operate a road-sweeper..." Is that really what the article says? Or does it just mean, first in Malaysia, or first in the Alam Flora corporation, or first to drive a Bucher-Schoerling-sixteen-tonne-model, or something like that. First in the *world* is a pretty strong claim, right? But I cannot read the article's language, and the machine-translation is awful, as usual. Can you read the language of that 2011 source fluently? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I got your point! Thanks, 74! my point right now is I would like to first not upload DUROMAC LOGO and submit to be reviewed. While I am also going to ask the help from Teahouse and see what I should do to get NFCC. Because personally, I would like to see DUROMAC article itself is ok enough. How do you think of it?--Clover1991 (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I read it again the first woman article, I think I would rather change it like this: first woman drive of 16-tone road sweeper. How do you think of it?--Clover1991 (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your change is good. (But probably you should say 16-tonne ... otherwise people will think it is a musical vehicle. :-) As for whether the duromac article is okay, yes, please submit it now. We can figure out the logo thing while we wait for an AfC reviewer. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hello,74! Sorry to ask you a stupid question. When I ready to resubmit my AFC,I need to create a new section for submit, right? in this new section, do I need to copy paste everything I have in my draft version??? I mean everything? Thank you! BTW,TTK checked my AFC page already, he said we improve 200%!!!wow!!!--Clover1991 (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your change is good. (But probably you should say 16-tonne ... otherwise people will think it is a musical vehicle. :-) As for whether the duromac article is okay, yes, please submit it now. We can figure out the logo thing while we wait for an AfC reviewer. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I read it again the first woman article, I think I would rather change it like this: first woman drive of 16-tone road sweeper. How do you think of it?--Clover1991 (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I got your point! Thanks, 74! my point right now is I would like to first not upload DUROMAC LOGO and submit to be reviewed. While I am also going to ask the help from Teahouse and see what I should do to get NFCC. Because personally, I would like to see DUROMAC article itself is ok enough. How do you think of it?--Clover1991 (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
You should not have to paste everything ... are you just resubmitting our existing work? That's not the same as creating a new AfC submission, from scratch. Here is what you should do.
First, go to our existing article. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/DUROMAC(M)_SDN_BHD
Next, at the top of our existing article, there is a pink box where Tikuko reviewed our draft from a few weeks ago. It looks like this.
- Submission declined on... (top of pink box)
- This submission appears... (embedded blue box)
- You are encouraged to... (middle of pink box)
- Resubmit. Please note... (bottom of pink box) <=== click 'resubmit' at the start of this portion
Finally, after you have clicked the resubmit, all that happens is one single line of hidden text is inserted into the article, which looks like this example-diff.[140]
Hope this helps. p.s. You can also ask Tikuko or Davidwr, if this does not make sense, or does not work. Tell them you are ready to resubmit your updated AfC-submission for another review. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, I did the same step, I click resubmit, and suddenly jump into the page like this [141]I don't get it, is there something wrong with my page??--Clover1991 (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- You are doing it right. After you click 'resubmit' you will see the weird page you described, then you just click the 'save' button at the bottom (do not paste anything). That weird page is a "technical limitation" of the way the AfC software works... it is just built on top of regular wikipedia stuff, not specially coded for AfC work, so the confusing "intermediate page" is nothing to worry about. :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi 74! I just found out the article was declined. :( What can we do now? ~~----
- You are doing it right. After you click 'resubmit' you will see the weird page you described, then you just click the 'save' button at the bottom (do not paste anything). That weird page is a "technical limitation" of the way the AfC software works... it is just built on top of regular wikipedia stuff, not specially coded for AfC work, so the confusing "intermediate page" is nothing to worry about. :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
OrderUp
Hey, thanks for your message! I'd love your help with getting the OrderUp article into shape. I made some changes based on suggestions from Huon, but would welcome additional feedback/guidance in getting this ready to move it to article space. Socialmedia2011 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Tracy, I'm still behind, though I am struggling to catch up on my backlog. If you are in a hurry, you might try picking somebody from the member-list on WP:RETENTION for assistance, or somebody at WP:ASSIST might have time. Ask folks one at a time, obviously, don't bulk-message all 200 people. :-) You can also leave a note at the WP:TEAHOUSE every couple of days, to see if anybody there feels like giving your article a once-over. The main trouble is that it is short on fact. The sources *give* facts, but the article elides most of them, instead just sticking pretty firmly to the description of the current biz-model, and the current product-line. My main advice is to treat the topic of OrderUp as a *historical monograph* rather than as a press release. You're doing good work, and trying hard, but you are a little to WP:INVOLVED with the company to make the prose fully neutral.
- What I mean is... try imagining that a huge fireball has engulfed all of North America (luckily you were on vacation overseas at the time! ... whew) and that there is no longer any OrderUp, or indeed, any cities with restaurants. Write the article as a dry, fact-filled history of that former corporation, in a now-gone era: genesis in LionMenus, with local coverage. Transition to Baltimore, with local competition, and million-dollar investment. Midstream changes to a completely unexpected new biz-model, with distributed branding, and franchising of a web-property and mobile-apps... "innovative" says Inc magazine. In 2013, just before the half-kilometer-asteroid strike wiped the continent from the map, the business model changed again, with centralized branding and turn-key operations. WP:CRYSTAL applies, we never found out what happened after that....
- Such a mindset might help. Along the way, give the wider historical context: WebVans, GrubHub, PizzaHut.com selling the first food over the internet, current competitors, modern advances in teleporters so we can someday just get our food delivered star-trek-style, that sort of thing. :-) In any case, I'll head your way when I have a spare minute, certainly, but also feel free to ping my talkpage when you wonder if I've forgotten, or have a quick question. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks so much! Good thinking on some of the broader data about the industry. I'll ping others/get back to you when I have done the next round of revisions. Good luck escaping fireballs on New Years. Socialmedia2011 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
→Hello again! I'm going to pop over to chat for help on the latest revisions, but hopefully these latest changes should have a drier tone and show more notability. I'd appreciate any more feedback if life has become any less crazy. (Yeah, right...) Socialmedia2011 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Pingback
I've stuck some replies to you on my talk page, sorry they aren't more ingenious. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
But what have I done with the talk page?
Here is one for you, as you like them. Also this File:Alfred Cheney Johnston - Dorothy Flood with The Mirror (1920).jpg|Dorothy Flood with The Mirror (1920)
But what have I done with the talk page? How do you fix this mess? Hafspajen (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Reverted it. Hafspajen (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
SORCER
Hello You have my answer on: Talk:SORCER#notability_and_sourcing Pawelpacewicz (talk) 10:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
A perfectly innocent Swedish article
I've been asked on my user talk about WT:Articles for creation/Adolf Fredrik's music school, which has just been declined for the second time, and I suspect you may have useful ideas. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- We already have an article on Adolf Fredrik, have you never heard of the thousand-year-reich? I can see why another article would be declined in a heartbeat, I hate nazis as much as the next... oh wait... Adolf Fredrik. Sure, I'll take a peek. :-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- 74, It's 4:30 am and I just got out of bed to start a little minivacation (to listen to choral singing in Berlin, no less) and I was met by the wonderful message you left on my own talkpage :-) Yes, indeed I would appreciate all the help I can get. I have no desire whatsover to make this article mine, I just think the subject is noteworthy. As I said I will be goen for a few days and can't do anything myself until I am back, but if you want to go ahead and improvements in the Adolf Fredrik's music school article, please do, I'll catch up!
- 74, I just posted some comments about this subject on Yngvadottir's talk page, destined for both you and Yngvadottir. Andersneld (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 07:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Re your trombone festival question: I don't know enough about the various festivals and similar events, I'm afraid. Try asking at http://tromboneforum.org/ PeterBiddlecombe (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
SORCER talk archived
So as suggested I archived Talk:SORCER. I like your ideas for our cooperation which You propossed on archived talk page. Pawelpacewicz (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Talk:SORCER now is empty - as You are more experienced and You have structured idea how to apporach it - I count on You with new structure :-) Pawelpacewicz (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Done, please add your commentary about "paragraph one" when you have time. Thanks much, it looks way less cluttered now. Also, note that there is a separate discussion (more technical in nature) going on at WT:Articles_for_creation/Exertion-oriented programming, which is relevant to some of our work at Talk:SORCER. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Happy New Year
Happy New Year! 74! Thanks for helping me with DUROMAC article. You are a nice person. All the best wishes! talk to you later!--Clover1991 (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Happy New Year
 |
Happy New Year! Hope you are having a lovely time!!!! All the best for you!!!!!!!!!!!! Hafspajen (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC) |
- Following your example, I collapsed tales on my talk, proud of the last DYK of the year and sad about losing another friend here, the one I mentioned with no real name (but now we know it, and that he was the one who wrote 'tis the season, my gift of 2012) - happy new year, such is life, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- For your thoughtful encouraging responses you receive the gift of 2012 (context: look for pride and prejudice on my user page), better late than never, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The AfD had to happen in the end
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER (2nd nomination) where your opinion will be valued, the more so since you have worked hard in this area. Fiddle Faddle 14:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
ho ho ho
Well, you finally address me directly, instead of just staying silent when asked good-faith questions, or appealing to the nearest authority-figure to try and get rid of me.
- 2 January 2014 at 17:27 UTC
- Vzaak (601,402 bytes) (-13,256)
- "Data on BLP and BLPTALK participation:"
- remove inappropriate WP:BATTLEGROUND charts
- for the third time;
- you had promised
- to quit this disruption
Tut tut, vzaak. WP:ASPERSIONS. All that I "promised" was to talk those charts over with you, but then, you refused to discuss anything whatsoever, charts or otherwise. You were perfectly free to be that way, you were not WP:REQUIRED to respond. Of course, as you well know, there are plenty of noticeboards concerning the blatantly-obvious-to-everyone WP:BATTLEGROUND, and I've little doubt that battleground will either continue until all your content-opponents are banned, driven away, or otherwise give up... or until the case goes to ArbCom for the second time, and the dispute over whether NPOV==SPOV is settled. Or perhaps you were referring to my promise to stick around until the battleground was ended and the article was fixed? That one still holds, too.
I suspect the only reason you dislike me posting the full context of content-contributions and talkpage-contributions, is that it graphically illustrates exactly who is perpetuating the WP:BATTLEGROUND. Please self-revert your unwanted deletion of my talkpage information, or start to explain yourself in an actual talkpage conversation, right here, today.
Summarized WMFLABS data is not COPYVIO, and none of my statements were BLPTALK violations by the longest stretch of the imagination. Back up your "inappropriate" accusations, or apologize, but don't stay silent now that you've broken cover. Your vague handwaving about how I'm being disruptive when I post contributor-data (in response to *your* post of contributor-data may I point out), whereas you're just being helpful-n-constructive, seems pretty tenuous. Is the data only allowed, when it improves the perception of WP:MAINSTREAM fka WP:SPOV as a policy?
I'm all ears to learn how you're not participating in battleground-behavior, it's all those *bad* people, the Sheldrake fanbois, the tumblesocks, anybody who disagrees with the contents of mainspace as defined by WP:SPOV. Is that your actual stance? You have kept your cards close to the vest, and failed to state your actual philosophical position on the relevant wikipedia policies, preferring to let others speak. Please, go ahead, speak now. I'm genuinely curious, because although actions speak louder than words, you don't seem to interpret your actions thataway. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
A quick ping before I go to bedddd
Could you keep an eye on Ryk72's situation? We seem to have an unfortunate confluence of holidays, a (regrettable) retirement from adminship, an intractable issue of world politics, and ... a newbie who writes well and either is a quick study or I am a hopeless softie. Iff this person is able to be unblocked, we could use your sage advice to help them; it's a bit late now for a welcome template and a short note, which tends to be my style in advising new editors. Tx, g'night. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Either you are quite tired, or the key between the F and the S on the lefthand side is stuck. :-) 28bytes I presume you mean, which aslo sent Gerda into temporary retirement. RRRRrrrrrgggh. When you are awake, and have a moment, the article about which I mentioned the russian-language newspapers to you is in AfD#2 (article is SORCER but direct AfD#2 link is in my note from FiddleFaddle just above), seeing if we can resolve the original no-consensus of AfD#1 into something more like a Keep, or more like a Move-To-WP:Drafts. It is a tricksy bit of sourcing, because we are mostly resting on PhD theses per WP:SCHOLARSHIP "with care", and on conference proceedings. Comment if you wish to, thanks. I haven't yet talked with Ymblanter, but I will, now with a bit more WP:TIAD in my step. :-) Talk to you later, my friend. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah I am exploring new frontiers in exhaustion (and the news is not good on my ersatz cat, so between the two and general chaos I am lucky if I have one working brain cell). Thanks for your post on the new editor's page; I'm told e-mails have been sent by others, and we'll see if a way can be found. (As you see it was a different administrative retirement.) I looked at the AfD but doubt I can help - when it gets into citation indexing I'm not much use anyway, since I have no experience with wielding those metrics. I suspect there is a wealth of Russian material, and personally I do think the conference papers count for something, but that's me, and the topic is way, way, way beyond me. ... Did you hear that there was a premature change to a template and by the time it was reverted, some 170 AfC submissions had been put in Draft space (which the relevant bots cannot yet handle)? I hope they have by now been fished out of there, or people will have to remember they exist and be prepared to deal with them manually. Ah, technology. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is my brain unable to keep up with kvenland's finest, or your brain unable to function while under the influences of sleep deprivation, but most of the pronouns in your reply were meaningless and/or esoterically obscure to me. :-) I have been trolling through google-scholar, counting up the cites for SORCER-fka-FIPER. If you know anybody that does computer aided engineering stuff in academia (or the military), that is the sort of person we need to have a glance over the papers, and determine whether they meet wikiNotability. But yes, certainly the system meets WP:GNG, so in the end it will be a keep, even if the most recent AfD ends up as move due to interpersonal issues. However, our new folks have been (as usual ... par for the course on wikipedia) frustrated to the point of tearing at their UNIX-beards. :-/ The wikiCulture is the crux of the problem, as I keep wailing about. Anyhoo, it will be a rough ride for these folks, but maybe I'll introduce them to the logical clueful Ryk who was perma-banned after four (4) talkpage posts, zero (0) mainspace edits, zero (0) noticeboard posts, zero (0) warnings, zero (0) lack of WP:CLUE, so the SORCERers understand what REALLY rough-shod treatment looks like. Sleep well, and please rework your reply above with more specifics, so that I may grasp it, if you will. :-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah I am exploring new frontiers in exhaustion (and the news is not good on my ersatz cat, so between the two and general chaos I am lucky if I have one working brain cell). Thanks for your post on the new editor's page; I'm told e-mails have been sent by others, and we'll see if a way can be found. (As you see it was a different administrative retirement.) I looked at the AfD but doubt I can help - when it gets into citation indexing I'm not much use anyway, since I have no experience with wielding those metrics. I suspect there is a wealth of Russian material, and personally I do think the conference papers count for something, but that's me, and the topic is way, way, way beyond me. ... Did you hear that there was a premature change to a template and by the time it was reverted, some 170 AfC submissions had been put in Draft space (which the relevant bots cannot yet handle)? I hope they have by now been fished out of there, or people will have to remember they exist and be prepared to deal with them manually. Ah, technology. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ryk72 has responded saying that they are going to try the e-mail - they pinged you but of course you don't get red numbers at the top of your screen. And Pratham asked a question on his talkpage a couple of days ago, which I responded to. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Article creation - Jennifer Diamond Cancer Foundation
Thank you so much for your help with this article. I have made some changes re: the sources, I wonder if you could take a look at it again? I found a source for the Councilman's commendation but not the city proclamation and have removed that statement. Also, everything in the libraries were paid for solely by the foundation except the physical space, which I have made note of. Thanks again. Jenniferv240 (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
New FA!
Hello again. If you're not aware of it already, McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II is now an FA! Thank you for your contributions, and I hope you have a Happy New Year. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Timtrent
older stuff
|
|---|
|
74 thank You for Your input ... To be honest I'm tired
|
Hello 74
I understand your point that I should be nice ... I do not like if someone (FF in this case) is destroing our work without adding any feedback.
Let me explain what in my opinion is not correct on the way FF works on SORCER and what we all are loosing:
how FF works:
- FF asks for proofs for notability and sourcing;
- people are doing their hard work and providing proofs
- FF does not read it and clearly states that he will not go into details (but proofs for his doubts are IN THE DETAILS!!! - no other way); Due to that he is not able to give any feedback ... so we cannot improve it!
- Later he is stating that there is no proof (becouse he did not get into details) ... which clearly generates annoyance ...
- As a next step we se that someone who did not get into details is making (second) nomination for deletion ...
what we are loosing due to his way:
- loosing time for repeating existing proofs
- we do not get any feedback on what's missing in presented proofs - so we have no chances to improve it
- we loose eagerness for cooperation due to not nice behaviors of FF
- we do not get time to improve article - becous it's nominated for deletion
- we do not have any dialog - it's stopped by FF by fact that he does not give any feedback
how it should be done:
- if FF asks for proofs; proofs are delivered then FF should point out what exactly is missing in presented proofs.
- nomination for deletion should not be done by those who does not get into details (so not by FF)
Due to that I really believe that way of FF cooperation does not provide anything valuable, is annoing, disturbing and people who could give sth. into article loose their eagernes for cooperation ...
moreover ... he repeated the same mistake 2nd time already ... for me looks like he is focused to kill this article - no matter what is inside, no matter what are proofs ...
maybe I do not see sth. so please explain me how this could help us to make any progress?
regards
Pawelpacewicz (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hello pawelpacewicz, good to see you. :-) I have left you a huge pile of questions over on Talk:SORCER. Don't be scared off by them. ;-) Your frustrations are not unusual, sorry to say. Wikipedia is a tough place, nowadays. I'm working on that problem, and TimFiddleFaddle is helping me. You are welcome to contribute to that long-term work, of making wikipedia attractive to experts with brains, if you are also interested in such things... we need all the help we can get. <grin> To your eyes, when TimFiddleFaddle demands this, and demands that, and is not themselves doing the work, but *are* themselves pressing the big red delete button, it looks like an attack. There is an old saying: anything which does not delete the article, makes it stronger.
- Here is the article on the subject. I direct you to the notes section, which speaks of information asymmetry. You know more that TimFiddleFaddle about SORCER, and it is unreasonable for you to expect them to learn. But by the same logic, TimFiddleFaddle knows more about WP:PG, and it is unreasonable for him to expect you to learn. Both sides have to give a little here: you'll have to learn more about wikiCulture, and how it works. I'm happy to show you the ropes, and of course, have been trying to do so, all along. :-) TimFiddleFaddle is *also* trying to help show you the ropes; in particular, how to deal with the possibility of deletion bravely (it is only procedural... the edit-history remembers it all), and also how to deal with perceived-as-coercive demands for work! In a nutshell, you will do just fine, and the article will progress nicely, if you just do your best to stay WP:NICE, stay neutral in tone & decisions (in particular editing talkpages rather than mainspace... and staying *cool* when the discussion gets hot), plus finally, trying to figure out how this crazy thing called wikipedia works.
longer explanation ... worth reading methinks ... but re-read the summary above, at the end, and see if it makes more sense the second time you hear it.
|
|---|
|
- Anyhoo, feel free to chat with me further, about this, or about technical SORCER matters, or whatever. That said, I've also pulled in Ahnoneemoos to help us get SORCER/FIPER/exertions/etc properly worked out. They have volunteered to be the person that tries to handle the team-interaction-issues, and I'm going to try and concentrate on learning about SORCER deeply enough to get the first rewrite finished (necessary to remove the COI tag in mainspace ... as well as to improve the confusion-level in the article... see note#2 in the policy-page about responsible tagging I posted above). Ahnoneemoos can be blunt, like TimFiddleFaddle, but they have a *ton* of experience with wikipedia, and in particular, with editing really controversial articles like political stuff. Listen to what they say, they'll steer you towards a safe home port. :-) As usual, thanks for improving wikipedia. If my questions are too volumnious, please let me know, and I'll try and pick the top three that are holding up my understanding. Talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello 74
thank You for Your message ... I appreciate your way of communication. In my opinion FF should take a lesson from you: "how to communicate to others not to annoy them and encourage them to cooperation - basic training" :-) ... In my opinion it would help a lot ...
I fully understand all what You have written, I read a lot of Wikipedia rules to better understand the way wikipedia is working. Most of this what I got from you in your last message was there in Wikipedia rules already. Those rules DO make sense and I DO belive in it and I DO understand ... but in my opinion problem is not here.
Where problem is in my opinion:
- due to fact that now article is nominated for deletion (due to notability and sourcing) - what's sense to work on it??? - there is huge risk that all our work will be for nothing. So it's better now to stop improving - just focus on notability and proper sourcing. But FF (biggest hater and attacker) is not talking with presented proofs of notability and sourcing ... This is why this pile of questions are waiting ... I count on your understanding. I do want to cooperate with You on this. Unfortunately I do not have unlimited time for wikipedia ... I have to put priority to those tasks which most propably will give fruits ... due to nmination for deletion and lack of cooperation on presented proofes it is better to stop and wait ...
- let's assume good scenarion - it will stay ... most probably FF will try to destroy it again ... again there is huge risk that all our efforts will go for nothing ...
you are suggesting that FF is helping ... I'm sorry I do not see that. In my opinion he is destroing our work and eagerness for cooperation:
- Telling NO without argumentation, without feedback, whithout pointing out what is missing in presented proofes (would be good to get it from experienced FF) ... is completely not helping - it's stopping any dialog ...
- nominating again for deletion at moment where all the work is in the middle ... again is not helping.
- I can see that no matter what proofes will be presented - FF will not read this (as he clearly stated). But he will nominate it for deletion another time ... he have a lot of experience ... so most probably he will finally kill it ... - so why should we made our efforts?
- beeeing not nice to new people on wikipedia ... isn't helping ... it's discouraging them ...
You have mentioned that FF is specializing in Wikipedia:PG ... I have doubth here as well ... he mentioned (here: Articles for deletion/SORCER) that:
- "I do not get particularly involved with Wikilawyering" - so he is not specializing in Wikipedia:PG
- he put there "(..) a scientific paper is always a primary source" ... And this is obviously not true: due to 2 reasons:
- 1st reason - beeing or not being Primary source is NOT DEFINED by the fact that a source is scientific/academic or not. It's clearly stated in Wikipedia article on Primary source
- 2nd reason - scientific/academic sources have high value accorgdingly to Wikipedia rules described at Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP#Some_types_of_sources where it is clearly stated: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources". It shows as well that scientific/academic publications have higher value than any newspaper (including Wall Street Journal mentioned by you).
Sorry but those are basic errors ... we cannot call FF specialist in Wikipedia:PG - best would be to have here for cooperation someone much more professional.
I personally do not have so much eagerness and energy to work on it (due to reasons above) as I had before ... if You are waiting for some answers related to SORCER from others ... I guess - the reason is the same ...
I DO want to cooperate with You and others similar friendly Wikipedians (and I'll try to find time and eagerness) but FF convinced me that:
- most probably all our work will be lost ...
- that he willl attack it all the time - without cooperation, without dialog on the proofs ...
I guess others have the same feelings ...
Pawelpacewicz (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- To clarify, what I meant when I said that TimFiddler specializes in WP:PG, is that he specializes in protecting articles from later wikiLawyering, by deletionists who want them deleted because they want *everything* deleted that they don't personally like. His own sense of WP:PG is not derived from reading the plain text. Your reading of the texts, and what they mean, *is* correct. But the written rules are only fuzzy guidelines, they aren't ironclad statutes. See WP:NOTLAW, WP:NOTSTATUTE, and especially my all-time favorite, WP:IAR. *That* is how wikipedia ACTUALLY works, in practice, in the trenches. TimFiddler has a very strong sense of how the wikiCulture functions in practice, and what will keep and article safe in the wild, and what will put it at risk of an outside-the-rules-deletion. He nominated SORCER for deletion the second time, partly because he was annoyed at the wasted time arguing in circles, but *mostly* because he wanted to get a firm answer on record: that is what stops arguing around here, WP:CONSENSUS based on policy-backed arguments.
- As it turned out, we got the firm answer we needed, *because* of the policy-backed arguments by Ahnoneemoos and myself. That is why TRPoD changed their bangvote, from delete at first, to keep later. Because we had the necessary procedural proofs, of wikiNotability, and presented them correctly to the wikiJudge User:Collect — nothing else works. But now that it is done, as TimFiddler says below, the chances of us getting deleted are very slim. The article is well on the way towards being bullet-proof, all we need is to clean up the prose.
- Anyways, you and TimFiddler need not work together shoulder to shoulder, or be best buddies. If they get on your nerves, just ignore them; if you get on their nerves, they should just ignore you, but if they don't, keep serene and aloof, fighting is bad news, and arguing pointlessly will help nobody. Just concentrate on the content, not the contributor. And truth be told, you need not even believe me, that TimFiddler was acting for the good of wikipedia, and also for the good of the SORCER article (as distinct from the good of the various branches of the real-world SORCER projects). But TimFiddler was absolutely acting properly, by wikipedian standards, to improve the encyclopedia.
- As for your point about getting discouraged, not only do I wholeheartedly sympathize, I also firmly agree that the procedural adversarial nature of wikipedia's WP:PG are killing retention of good editors like yourself. TimFiddler and I are actually in the middle of a big discussion, and there is a group of 150 people or so that I work with at WP:RETENTION, trying to solve these wikiCulture problems. There is another group that I'm working with, trying to make wikipedia more friendly to companies, and employees of those companies... it is just nuts that we would *drive away* people who are getting paid to add facts to wikipedia! :-/
- One of the main reasons that TimFiddler invited me to come help with SORCER in the first place, was so that I could try and keep the byzantine wikiCulture around here from discouraging you so much that you quit. My success at that venture is tenuous, but we're past the really hard stuff. :-) I hope that a few months from now, when we have a good solid exposition of SORCER firmly embedded in mainspace, bullet-proof against the wily deletionists, you will look back on the obstacles you overcame with a wee bit of pride... and stick around, to help improve the rest of wikipedia (our coverage of hard-core aerospace and cutting-edge programming is "not optimal" as you may have noticed!), or to help me in my quest to make friendlyism the law of the land once again. Pillar four exists, and threatening to delete tons of work is not WP:NICE... it drives people away, see WP:BITE... but the worst of it is, the damn thing is just a move discussion, not even about deletion at all. Arrrgh! :-) :-) :-)
- Drives me nuts. Your experience of getting frustrated at the nutty rules and the jungle-style wikiCulture is not at all unusual, and I'm sorry to say, TimFiddler was EASY on you, compared to some cases I've seen. Wikipedia has issues right now; you are experiencing some of the side-effects; believe me, I'm working hard to fix the root troubles. TimFiddler is not the root trouble; they are helping me solve the root trouble, actually... but it is hard to see that, when you come here as you did, eager and ready to collaborate, and run headfirst into a big wall.
- Anyhoo, I'm glad we got the keep at the end. There will probably be several more AfD/RfC/etc WP:ALPHABETSOUP procedural discussions, that will sound terrifying, but are actually meaningless. Somebody will want to delete SORCER, and rename the article FIPER, but with the same content. Somebody will want to delete SORCER, and rename the article FIPER and Engenious and SORCER. Somebody will want to merge with Computer Aided Engineering. ... somebody may even want to delete SORCER, and rename the article Exertion-oriented programming, since that is more general. Just stay calm, and concentrate on the content. I'll let you know if any of the procedural stuff is actually worth worrying about, or if we can just ignore it. We won't lose anything, because wikipedia remembers the history. Delays can happen, but hey, there is no WP:DEADLINE. Everybody is volunteering here, for the most part, right? Right.
- Including me. Which means, enough with SORCER business for now, I'm supposed to be volunteering on three other pages too. :-) But I shall see you on the article-talkpage, whatever name it has, and we shall get the content into shape, I have little fear. It will probably take longer than we plan, and be frustrating at times, but the end result will be worth it, because we'll have produced a clear explanation and a reliably-neutral history of the effort. A good day, methinks. Getting there will be a bit of a haul, so gather your gumption, and keep your eyeballs on that end-goal of a solid bullet-proof article. Don't sweat the small stuff, and don't worry too much what other folks say or do, just keep trying hard to improve the content, and you'll be fine. Hope this helps, sorry about my *second* wall of text for you today, talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Reply from WWB
Hi there, finally got back to you with a couple of answers myself, at my Talk page. Talk more soon, WWB (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Talkback: SORCER
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not[citation needed] matter
Wikipedia is an amusing pastime, and a vehicle put together by the alleged wisdom possessed by crowds. Why on earth would anyone ever consider Wikipedia to be of even the tiniest importance?
Crowds, in their wisdom, create amusingly complex bureaucracies, and then adhere to the rules so slavishly that they create other rules. Other crowds lynch black folk. Other crowds support monomaniacs.
"What do we want?"
"Something!"
"When do we want it?
"Now!"
This is a hobby. Some folk think it is real life. For some folk it is their real life. Fiddle Faddle 17:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's the spirit! :-) You are correct in most everything you say. And it is not a bad 'tude, especially if it keeps you sane. But like all of us here, methinks you just may secretly harbor a deep belief that wikipedia is so totally important duuude. As the old saying goes, I'm donating my brain to science when I die... every little bit helps. <grin> There is a good reason that about 50% of the people on earth consider wikipedia to be pretty dern important: that gold ol'mission, creating a place where all can share the sum of all knowledge. Aristotle wanted it. Leibniz wanted it. Ada wanted it. Vannevar wanted it. Most of the digital computer nerds wanted it; some of them liked the ivory tower, but plenty of them thought computing was for everybody, and information meant to be free. Pretty much *all* of the internet and hypertext nerds, BADLY wanted it.
- But the pinnacle of the internet is facebook, gag me with a spoon. Just like them, Google wants *your* private information to be freely accessible to *them* but not vice versa. The only top-ten website in the world where that old dream still holds, is wikipedia. Therefore, I plan to free the wiki-slaves, revert the wiki-BURO, prevent future lynch-mobs (wiki in particular but in general is also quite plausible... a wealth of information cures bigotry), and if I get the chance, give somebody going across the DMZ into North Korea a nice little USB-key, with a harmless bunch of tourist photos stored on it for showing to their friends... plus a plausible-deniability steganographically-hidden secondary filesystem containing a static dump of wikipedia, and the mainpage pre-configured with Liberty and Justice for all.
- There is precious little wisdom in crowds, as you say. Tommy Lee Jones was correct: a person can be smart, and an individual can cope with fear. But people? They tend to become violent panicky mobs, or pack animals fighting each other for dominance, or DahCommuhnity exercising tyranny of the majority with evil glee. And yet, we've come so far. In the days of Aristotle, democracy was just another name for mob rule, and eat the rich was always the first thing to happen. Aristotle was particularly impressed at *one* uprising where the peasants did *not* immediately institute land-ownership-communism (followed shortly thereafter by famine). Thousands of years later, we have the brits and the americans slowly figure out this magna-carta-through-rebublican-form-of-constitutional-democracy-thing, with checks and balances... but not guillotines! The french are a warning that metric time leads to republican dictatorship, as surely as mob rule leads to democratic dictatorship. Couple hundred years later, we have Stalin the democratic-dictator and then Hitler the republican-dictator, showing us just how bad it can really get, when bad ideas and modern technology combine forces.
- It was very bad. But it could have been worse. There were no jets then. There were no missiles. There were no robots, except in the movies. There were no computers, or at least, no programmable digital computers with electronic memory. There were no nukes. Seventy-five years later, we will have all those things, and far more... plus wikipedia. Jets cannot prevent WWIII, nor nukes, nor spacecraft, nor robots, nor drones, nor tablet computers. Recent events prove people will still kill each other over nationalism, religion, commodities, and the assassination of some minor political figure. There is a possibility that nigh-unimaginably horrendous WWIII can be averted *without* creating a world totalitarian government "to save us from our dangerous freedoms", and I say to you, wikipedia is a very large facet of that possibility. People don't trust the press. People don't trust the leaders. People don't trust the neighbors. But people — sometimes, and usually for the wrong reasons — are beginning to trust wikipedia.
- Not that we've earned it! But we've done better than the others listed, eh? ;-) If we can learn to govern ourselves, if we can learn to keep greed/COI from trumping logic/truth, if we can learn to keep factions/snark from trumping facts/nice, then we can propagate that elsewhere: starting with corporations and informal organizations, then gradually converting towns and cities and provinces and nations. But that's an extremely outside-the-gaussian-probabilities-possibility; how editors behave is not really going to change the world, chances are excellent.
- How the readership behaves, now, that is another matter. COI brings people here, that want to influence the 500M. Real-world factions, political and religious and corporate and ideological, brings people here to impact mindshare. You know about the floating voters, in a twin-party system. Even in a proportional-voting system like 'mindshare' tends to be, there are tactics. But we have the knowledge. We have the empirical evidence we need, and the double-blind trials scenario if we need. We could figure out this whole bigotry thing, methinks, and this whole battleground-behavior thing, amongst the readership. Wikipedia is a hobby in practice, but it is also a utterly serious in theory. The folks over in the pokemon section, and the folks in the List Of TeeVee Episodes, are not here for serious reasons, really; they are truly engaged in a hobby... something soothing, and essentially pointless, like stamp collecting.
- But the hook is there. The folks who are pulled into wikipedia by television, sometimes get a little addicted to that drug called Knowledge... a little of which can be a dangerous thing, but nobody every achieved vast knwo-how, without first taking a sip. Anyhoo, suppose I've blathered and blethered enough for the nonce. I'd like to solve the gordCOIn knot (without swords), and as part and parcel of that solve the factionalism (or at least channel it into useful energy-expenditures rather than fruitless ones). Part of that means, we need to make wikipedia more WP:-D and make the wikiCulture-learning-curve less of a boot-to-the-neck experience. If we can make it more fun, and get a steady influx of Good Eggs, then we'll start to have the personnel necessary to attack those hard problems. Many hands make lengthy tedious tasks much more bearable; and with many minds, one individual can often see the truth... the trick is getting the rest of the unruly mob to listen to logic. :-) In any case, although wikipedia doesn't matter, life would go on without it, it most certainly *does* matter... with luck. You gotta ask yourself one question, punk: do I feel lucky? <but actually I liked good bad & ugly better than dirty harry... two mules was also pretty good> Talk to you later, my friend. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- With Wikipedia the meek have inherited the earth. They do not even have to ask "Is that all right with the rest of you?", for the meek can, at last, put the boot in, and do it with authoritah! So it is fun. The meek have always wanted to be bullies, and now they can.
- It's not important, it's just the research material for a whole department of psychology. I wonder if that is important? Let'stake over the world!
- I'm off for a week. Have fun with Dumbledore and the Wizards. Sounds like a band. Fiddle Faddle 09:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm with Heinlein, on the subject of inheriting the earth. With any luck, wikipedia will be one of the keys to privatized spaceflight finally taking off. But yes, fully agree about the psychology-researcher fodder, and in fact, over at AN/I there was a professor using their class to run a live psychology experiment (the hypothesis was something like "what are the chances wikipedia admins will hard-block all IPs in a fifty-mile-radius centered on a large city"). There's also multiple folks using wikipedia personally, putting on some custom-tweaked "persona" and then trying to see what the response is that they get, so later they can write up their thesis (presumably called something like "my experience bear-baiting wikipedians"). Those direct-experimenters are at the noticeboards constantly, which is why they stick out.
- Of course... these direct & indirect are few and far between. The really interesting psychology-research will happen when somebody downloads the dumpfiles, and uses computerized automatic statistical analysis, and correlates the on-wiki evidence with their large off-wiki database of micro-demographics data (provided by the NSA in concert with Facebook and the sysadmins of the Great Firewall), which when published in the non-classified literature fifty years from now will give us a quantitative count of how many of the 30k editors are here for LULz, for psych-undergrad-research, for COI at the behest of their boss, for COI at the behest of their friends, for worshipping the Great Jimbo, for ending bigotry amongst high-schoolers, for improving the sum of human knowledge, for getting the right people elected to real-life political positions, for getting the readership into a purer religious mindset, and for social networking. Ughhh. And yes, not to be forgotten, how many are here for the thrill of authoritah, battling for the adrenaline rush in the drahmahz. And there are even some people who are here to improve the encyclopedia, rumour has it!
- *All* these categories are non-zero; my idea is that rather than try to categorize them quantitatively fifty years from now, we instead should just go ahead and build a system, right now today, that mitigates the problematic behaviors (by channeling it into something either positive or at least non-negative or at least negative-but-easy-to-handle). More crucially, though, we need to simultaneously build a system that encourages and is evolutionarily-selective-for the Good Eggs, and provide them with the wikitools to back them up. Have a beautiful week away! When you return, we can do ... the same thing we do every week. <insert theme music> :-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: DUROMAC(M) SDN BHD (January 5)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DUROMAC(M) SDN BHD.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.
New Message
Hello. You have a new message at Anupmehra's talk page.
New Message
Hello. You have a new message at Anupmehra's talk page.
Hello 74
Hi, 74. Thanks for helping to improve the article on Heng_Siew_Chiang_Sendirian_Berhad. Regarding the court case, the company has appealed after the loss in High Court and it was allowed, which means the company has won the case in the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JB Heng (talk • contribs) 03:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Ping
Questions on my talk page about editing Adolf Fredrik's music school :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
You have a talk back
Hey, 74. I leave message on my talk page, please go and check it. Thanks--Clover1991 (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Today's business
After a quick-fail at GA, New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary was turned into a redirect to List of schools in India, which I reverted, and is now at AfD. Could you talk to Pratham about this? I still have a dreadful cold and can barely string two words together.
I also had not seen until today that Ryk72 apparently decided to go the Arbcom appeal route; see the unanswered unblock template on his talk page and the draft beneath it. I'm making inquiries on IRC with the thought that maybe I should instead start an AN discussion. (Which will be laughably badly worded if I do.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sure. I just got done messing with SORCER and Duromac, and still need to mess with my other two tasks of Deewells and Andersweld (plus now Pratham). Kafziel's workshop (extended to the 10th now) and Bish and Ahnon/WWB and Ironholds and Carib... plus I'm still gonna write up a friends-of-fix for Tim and an ontology-of-goodness for you, Yngvadottir, not to mention my friendlyism template-messages and six custom jscript projects and upgrading the wikiCulture. Plus, if I don't get my Billbird sentences finished, the San Andreas fault may finally give up the ghost, and the land of the West slideth into yonder sea. :-) I'll ping HJ_Mitchell again, and see if *they* want to write up the AN wording. p.s. You have the flu. Go to sleep for 36 hours. WP:NOFRETTING. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Unfinished and even unstarted tasks ... you and me both, and I do sympathize. I spoke to Ryk72 on IRC confirming his decision to go the e-mail route - he's still there, under that name, in case you want to log on; he appears to have just finished dinner. I will probably head to bed soon (another hour or so); I'm afraid I'm not good for much right now, which is why I pinged you. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 18:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I answered your edit request, but I'm not sure if more changes are needed. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 18:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Mr. IP,
Looking at the huge contributions coming from this IP and style of comments and all i know that you have been here for long. You must have been approached by various editors to register and edit but as you clearly have not done that i wouldn't repeat it. Thanks for your views on the AfD. But i very much disliked your comment on the article creator's talk page you posted thus. Wikipedia doesn't have deadlines. Editors can take their time to edit articles. If you are in rush, you do it yourself. Practically we do require some edits to be done within a certain time and those edits for the article to prove school's existence have already be done. I am assuming that you mean well; but "now", "right now", "no more delay", "newspapers first" is simply not done. You are well versed with WP and you can help find yourself all the policies that would say same stuff what i wrote without blue-links. AfDs are not FACs and AfDs are certainly not means to practice ransom. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Dharmadhyaksha, you can call me 74 please. Everything you say is correct. :-) I do appreciate your criticism, and in other circumstances, would follow the bluelinks you implicitly mentioned. However, in this particular circumstance, my goal is to train Pratham to listen. The difficulty of that task has led to my admittedly-drastic measure; I'm not sure if you will agree with me, that such a step is justified for the long-term good of the editor and the article, but I will attempt to explain my rationale.
the tale of headstrong wikithusiasm... and how to help channel it into productive non-frustrating actions
|
|---|
|
- So, while I agree there is no WP:DEADLINE for content in mainspace, there *is* effectively a deadline for Pratham learning to be WP:NICE... if they frustrate WikiDan and other folks trying to work on the page enough, Pratham will find out about the banhammer (which is supposed to be non-punitive... just like AfD is supposed to be non-coercive... but again... practice versus theory). I would appreciate your advice, if you have any, on whether you still think my step was too drastic, and whether or not you do, what specifically you would recommend for helping Pratham. And of course, if you would like to show me how it is done more directly, by stepping in to guide Pratham a bit, that would be most appreciated; add their contributions-page to your watchlist, if you like. Pratham seems like they could be an asset here, given time to grow into the role.
- In any case, I do thank you for leaving me a note, and especially for looking things over before deciding how to phrase it. Your criticism is perfectly justified, and is a good thing to keep doing, if you see similar problematic things in the future (from me or not from me!). In this case, I was purposely using strong language, partly to make sure to overcome the language-barrier and communicate the level of frustration folks are beginning to feel, but primarily as a one-time attempt to make the connection with Pratham; it isn't my usual style of interaction, and once connection was made, wouldn't have been necessary to repeat. I'm not sure it was the right choice, or if another gentler way could have worked. p.s. Pratham has responded... I will leave them a nice reply, and see if I can keep the conversation going. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
WWB replies
Given the activity on your Talk page, I figured it was best to let you know I've responded to both threads on my Talk page. Looking forward to continuing the discussion. Best, WWB (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the note
I just wanted to drop by and say thanks for the note. After years and hundreds of thousands of edits to the project the community has made it extremely clear to me that my presence is not needed or wanted. Its clear to me that the project and many of its processes are broken beyond repair and whats worse is the majority of the users are either too lazy to fix it, don't think its a problem or have a vested interest in keeping the project down so thy feel important. That's not the environment I joined the project for and I have no interest in participating in that. If I could undo all the edits I did, I would. Kumioko (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is only one thing to do, with any particular process (one which serves a useful purpose), when that particular process has become broken beyond repair. Instead of trying to upgrade the process, create a much-better new process in parallel, which serves the same useful purpose, only, you know, better. Not sucking at it. Pretty soon, all the rational folks switch over to this newfangled approach, and the ones that don't switch... well, they aren't very effective in preventing the newfangled approach from winning, because by definition, the old process is broken beyond repair.
- As for particular broken-beyond-repair-processes that serve no useful purpose... my policy is to just document that fact, for non-actively-harmful processes. If the broken process is basically harmless to the rest of wikipedia (i.e. it is a waste of time but only impacts the folks that decide to involve themselves with the process in question), then who cares? There are plenty of things in life which waste time: facebook, fishing, and other illicit recreational activity that begins with the same letter. :-) Wikipedia ain't gonna stop those timesinks, so why sweat the small stuff on-wiki?
- There is a third category, which is rare, but does exist: particular broken-beyond-repair-processes which actively harm wikipedia. That one takes a bit more ranting to deal with. :-)
the tale of functional superiority plus moral superiority buttressed by numerical superiority
|
|---|
|
- Yea verily, herefore ends the rant-eth-ing. Go forth in good cheer, Kumioko, and seek ye The Good that the real-o-verse yet holds. Be not so hasty to wish your efforts here eradicated from history; some here yet see value in them. All hope is not yet lost, though the hour is perhaps getting dire. Should ye wish to return someday, I hope it will be, that you heard from a real-life acquaintance that they had fun editing wikipedia, over the weekend, without scarequotes, without airquotes, without sarcasm, without gallows humour. On that day, take a peek at the reportcard.wmflabs.org , and see whether you can decry an uptick in net 5+edits/mo actives. If you see such an uptick at I describe, that is a good omen, a sign from the wiki-deities.
- If you see a monotonically-upward trend, please return immediately! :-) Because what that means, is that the historical moment for fixing the Processii-Which-Have-Proven-Impossible-To-Fix ... will finally have arrived. In the meanwhile, if you feel like fiddling around with some off-wiki software hacks, which I'm busy working out the designs for, you're welcome to swap emails with me. Thanks for improving wikipedia, maybe I'll see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Chiming in to "All hope is not yet lost": I observe amazing poetry. Did you see the poem that arrived on my talk under the heading "Hope is precious and great joy is found in living"? The poetry here? I understand that one of our new arbs wrote a poem for his RfA in 2010, and even I - challenged - tried a Haiku, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Gerda, your first line is starkly beautiful, but your last line is too much of a downer. :-| You must learn from the master:
- This day should leave us glad, not sad.
- Yours very truly, Newyorkbrad
WP:-D, wheeee! Epic trilogy of cyclic wonder![142] My favorite bit:
- Instead, can all (yes, admins too)
- Resolve to use a bit more Clue?
Also very good, and immoralized (or is that immortalized? hmmmmm) in an official-Cabal-approved-religious-diktat known as WP:UIAR.
- There's way too much red tape on wiki
- Sometimes that tape is rather sticky
- You wouldn't be wrong, not by a particle,
- To say we each should write an article
- Instead of having to....
I stole *my* haiku from MastCell. But you will not find it, sekrit messij, too bad for you. :-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- sekrit messij: a blue duck attacks the German Main page right now! - had to happen on the 28th ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Computing Conceptualization
I really appreciate your efforts to understand and clarify the role and functionality of SORCER so far. I have mentioned before that it looks to me like "the mission impossible". Now I am about to teach a course on "Service-oriented Network Systems" and have a similar challenge with respect to my grad students that becomes more evident now in the context of SORCER misconceptions related to the Wikipedia SORCER article. I have completed a presentation on "Computing Conceptualizations" in order to bring just in the beginning the right semantics of confusing computing terms from the metamodeling point of view (Tarski's undefinability theorem) as a system of Domain/Management/Carrier (DMC) triplets. PLease review those concepts in th the PPT presentation at: http://sorcersoft.net/download/ComputingConceptualizations.pptx A few charts are animated so please watch in the "Slide Show" mode. Feel free to drop me email for more details at mwsobol@gmail.comMwsobol (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- You are surely welcome; as for myself, I appreciate your efforts to improve this place. :-) The mission is very much possible at this point, we have found sufficient sourcing to satisfy wikiJustice. It is now just a case of 1) getting the explanatory metaphors both correct and simultaneously useful-to-the-readership, and 2) getting all the procedural
T's dotted and I's crossedor vice versa, or something. There will be some wiki-turmoil surrounding both tasks, and it will take a considerable amount of time/effort yet (especially if ALL parties fail to stay calm-cool-n-collected), but success is basically guaranteed at this point, barring imminent killer asteroid strike or similar. - I will check out the powerpoint this weekend, thanks; of course, wikipedia is mostly about summarizing the established research, and the historical arc of ideas, so some of the cutting-edge things won't get into mainspace during January. That said, it is helpful to me, if I can try and catch up to somewhere *near* the cutting edge, so that I can look back at the sources with a wiser eye. Appreciate your time, talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Arbcom
Your comments at Arbcom made a lot of sense, I must admit to having similar thoughts at the outset of two editors acting in good faith. As the case went on, I must admit my view changed with Hasteur's rather obvious pre-occupation with Kafziel. In truth as I said at the outset I didn't think this was ever a case to be placed under arbcom and I can't see this ending well for anyone concerned. Anyway, just wanted to note my appreciation for your comments. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 16:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, thanks; appreciate your compliments. Yes, the case should never have been brought. Yes, unless the arbs take my advice, and issue some pillar-clarifications and wikiproject-role-clarifications, it will turn out badly ("arbitration" always means banhammers all around... how asinine is that, eh?).
- But my grok here is that WP:IMAGINE applies. Hasteur really is rubbed the wrong way by Kafziel, sure, and by myself for that matter. ;-) Nothing wrong with that; there are people that rub me the wrong way, that's to be expected in a huge global project like enWiki. I'm currently avoiding a conversation, with one such; at least the feeling is mutual, so we try to stay out of each other's hair, and mostly succeed.
- The main point for Hasteur though has *never* been Kafziel personally... it is a mistake to think that Hasteur is out to get Kafziel when in fact Hasteur is just out to make sure there aren't such disagreements about How Things Are Done in the future, a good goal methinks... for Hasteur, this has always been, what about the *next* time some cowhand comes along, saying that WP:IAR is their reason? What then? Hasteur believes (very correctly) that if ArbCom punts on this one, then that is effectively the same as ArbCom saying that Kafziel *can* retire, without losing the admin-bit. It is also effectively the same as ArbCom saying, the close at AN/I was correct. To my mind, both of those things are the *desired* outcome (Hasteur strongly disagrees).
- Anyhoo, if in fact Kafziel did something wrong, then ArbCom can rule they ought to lose the admin-bit, whether in absentia or not, who cares? The arbs that are squeamish about removing the admin-bit of somebody who is not there to defend themselves, have lost touch with how AN/I lunch-mobs and AE lunch-mobs work, it seems. But I don't think Kafziel did anything wrong. Hasteur *does* think that... but Hasteur *also* thinks that wikiprojects set policy, or at least, set procedures which have the same weight as policy "in the articles/pages related to the purview of that wikiproject". Hasteur ain't the only one: I've seen the same thing from many other wikiproject members. If that WERE the case, well then sure, Kafziel did it wrong, and abused tools! But it ain't the case. This is the core misunderstanding, and if anything good comes out of this case, it will be that either Hasteur learns I'm right, and can adjust their future behavior to match, or *I* learn that Hasteur is right, and that pillar five is no longer made of stone. This is the difference between WP:UIAR (one good thing to come out of this stupid arbcom is that I had never heard of that essay before), and the diagram Hasteur quoted, WP:WIARM.
- The hour is late, but the WP:DEADLINE has not yet struck. The workshop is officially "closed" but the various pages&talkpages *are* still open. The arbs are likely listening, especially the newly-hatched ones, eh? I would urge you to think over whether Hasteur is really the bad guy here, or if this is just a dispute over the meaning of "improved" in the fifth pillar, and over the role of wikiprojects as statute-setting bodies (versus just voluntary clubs). See my post to Hasteur's talkpage. Same advice for ColonelHenry; just because Kafziel got a little abrasive, was no excuse for Hasteur to get abrasive in response... and by the same token, just because Hasteur has been abrasive recently, is no excuse for the Colonel to stop being WP:NICE. Retain the high moral ground, is a good idea tactically. But more long-term, that fourth pillar is made of stone, dammit, stone I say! :-) Appreciate you dropping by, WCM, feel free to come back anytime, or talkback me if you are working on something and need a hand. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Just out of curiousity, can you see anything inherently wrong with this? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Replied below. It looks like a mess to me. :-) But methinks it can be repaired. Classic example of where the AfC queue is useful, giving a place for puff-pieces to get their prose tightened and their sourcing improved, prior to hitting mainspace. Of course, simultaneously a classic example of everything wrong with the AfC queue: nobody is ****helping**** fix the problems, just pointing out the problems and moving on. Me included. ;-) But hopefully my list is specific enough, that somebodywith access to the cited sources, can go through them and see how many names were *actually* mentioned by the RSes, and whether any of the puff-words were *actually* quoted in the RSes, rather than WP:EDITORIALIZING out of thin air. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Summoned I respond. We have approximately 1200 pending submissions right now. Let's assume that each volunteer gives 5 minutes of face time to each submission. Half of that time is spent reading the prose. If it's close, then the volunteer can spend the time to correct the problem themselves, if it's not dropping a decline and for what reason is a easy way to give the writer more guidance and get the reviewer back on track to reviewing. Based on the current backlog drive there are approximately 10 reviewers. Assuming we have the volunteers reviewing one after the other and no new reviews coming in, the volunteers could complete the backlog in 10 hours if all the volunteers are working on it. This is untanable and no volunteer can sit down for that long to get through that many. Yes we'd love to be able to dedicate 15 minutes to each review, but when a new submission can be slapped together in 2 minutes, it'a a infinitely loosing proposition that leads to individuals taking a "Burn it to the ground" mentality and take actions significantly divergent with policu. Hasteur (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think five minutes is overstating the case; some current AfC people are that conscientious, but most cannot afford to be. 3 minutes and fifteen seconds was the average I measured, in one sample-session from one AfC person, who shall remain nameless. (Not you Hasteur. :-) At that avg rate of 3mins/article, our anonymous speed-reviewer could burn through all 1200 submissions in the queue within about 65 hours, aka two 40-hour workweeks, all by themselves. Now, obviously, they are a volunteer, they aren't working 8-hour-days; we *have* a few of those, Kudpung is one I know who puts in an incredible number of hours, but Kudpung is the exception not the rule. But still, the point is clear: going through the queue, is not that difficult.
- The trouble is, at only 3 mins each, most of the 1200 articles are not going to be LEAVING the queue. They're going to be declined, for one reason or another, and sent to the back of the queue. So the 1200 doesn't get smaller; in fact, as more submissions are added, the queue *grows* uncontrollably. The perils of success! So if we want to get articles out of the queue, there are two choices: either we have to delete them (which is the appropriate case for the worst attackpages/spams/copyvios that should *not* be recreated), or we have to approve them. The rule of thumb, is that articles should be approved, once there is a 50% chance they will survive the AfD. Now clearly, 90% chance would be better... but due to practical constraints, this is such a lowball number because otherwise the AfC queue would be overrun.
- There are two ways out of the dilemna, that I see. The first way is cap-n-scrap™ in which we need to set a cap on how big the AfC queue can get, something like 500 articles, to pick a number for the sake of discussion. Once the queue grows to 501 articles, then immediately the submissions that were already reviewed, and marked as "close" to being ready, would need to be pushed to mainspace, to sink or to swim. For this scheme to work, reviewers would have to explicitly assign percentage-grades (rather than a binary accept/decline) to each article they reviewed. Then, we would have a means to keep the queue-size down. Once we crossed #501 in the queue, the top 99 (say) articles of the ones that had already been reviewed, the top 99 with the highest assessed chances of passing AfD, would be pushed into mainspace. The AfC queue would be back down to about 400 again, by that point.
- The other way out of the dilemna ... which is orthogonal slash complementary to the first solution... is the forcible userfication of the *worst* articles in the queue. When we hit 501 articles in the queue, we push the 99 already-reviewed articles with the *best* assessed-chance of surviving into mainspace, to sink or swim (they have a better chance of getting the help they need there). At the same time, we should userify the 99 already-reviewed articles with the *worst* assessed-chance of surviving, back to the author's sandbox. They are too far from being ready, and they are clogging up the queue. This is not quite as harsh as outright deletion; rough drafts in user-sandboxes can always be resubmitted to AfC later.
- Anyways, to my mind, AfC is a reviewing-service. The ten people, Anne/David/Julie/Tikuko/Kudpung/Anup/Hasteur/Richie/Rodger/DGG and the other regulars, are experts at glancing through the article, and giving it a few helpful pointers. That's a precious resource, and we should not waste it, by leaving stuff that is good enough to survive *in* the queue, and by the same token, by leaving stuff that is nowhere *near* ready to survive in the queue. AfC is for stuff that is close-but-not-quite, a temporary-landing-area, for processing and then moving along, not a permanent home. Does this cap-n-scrap scheme make sense? *Can* the articles be assessed with a percentage-grade, which gives the reviewer's opinion about the article's chances of surviving AfD, in the current state? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Summoned I respond. We have approximately 1200 pending submissions right now. Let's assume that each volunteer gives 5 minutes of face time to each submission. Half of that time is spent reading the prose. If it's close, then the volunteer can spend the time to correct the problem themselves, if it's not dropping a decline and for what reason is a easy way to give the writer more guidance and get the reviewer back on track to reviewing. Based on the current backlog drive there are approximately 10 reviewers. Assuming we have the volunteers reviewing one after the other and no new reviews coming in, the volunteers could complete the backlog in 10 hours if all the volunteers are working on it. This is untanable and no volunteer can sit down for that long to get through that many. Yes we'd love to be able to dedicate 15 minutes to each review, but when a new submission can be slapped together in 2 minutes, it'a a infinitely loosing proposition that leads to individuals taking a "Burn it to the ground" mentality and take actions significantly divergent with policu. Hasteur (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Replied below. It looks like a mess to me. :-) But methinks it can be repaired. Classic example of where the AfC queue is useful, giving a place for puff-pieces to get their prose tightened and their sourcing improved, prior to hitting mainspace. Of course, simultaneously a classic example of everything wrong with the AfC queue: nobody is ****helping**** fix the problems, just pointing out the problems and moving on. Me included. ;-) But hopefully my list is specific enough, that somebodywith access to the cited sources, can go through them and see how many names were *actually* mentioned by the RSes, and whether any of the puff-words were *actually* quoted in the RSes, rather than WP:EDITORIALIZING out of thin air. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't believe either 74 or I summoned you Hasteur? Colonel Henry alerted me to Hasteur's venting of his spleen, it may amuse you[143]. I've been called many things but Scum an Villainy is a new one. I may even add scum and villain to my signature. My previous favourite was when I had some Brit calling me a "Fucking Argie Loving Wanker" at the same time an Argentine labelled me an "an abusive, british POV pushing wiki stalker" on Talk:Falkland Islands. I intend to ignore this as I ignore other similar comments.
- My reason for asking about that article was that if you do a search in Wikipedia for that gallery, you will find it referred to frequently. Hence, I was rather surprised given its notability that it was not covered already. The article in AfC is a bit of a dogs breakfast but I would have launched it into article space immediately. Whenever I have launched my own articles I have found that within days they're polished by enthusiastic editors who are skilled at tittivating references and tidying prose. See Political development in modern Gibraltar and compare it with the original from my sandbox (User:Wee Curry Monster/Political development in modern Gibraltar) for example. Yet I don't, because the AfC project would go apeshit that I wasn't following their process (one of the reasons why I and other editors don't get involved). The confusion between projects that their rules are "policy" is unhealthy and one good outcome of arbcom would be a clear comment this is not the case. Projects may set guidelines but they're not policy or rules. My own take is that AfC is failing new editors by keeping them in AfC space for far too long. Articles should be launched to sink or swim much earlier. Too many editors who try to create their first article give up due to the glacial pace there, whilst there is little help or advice offered.
- 74 pleased to make your acquaintance and I will take you up on your kind offer with my next article. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with Wee Curry Monster's comments, 74. Glad to have run across and read enthusiastically your level headed judgment and contributions to the ArbCom matter.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
review of Stuxnet
FairyTailRocks & Hasteur ==
- WP:RS, must have proven WP:42 ... seems close, but does it have 50% chance of surviving AfD ? (Hard to tell since most sources are offline... Stux *not* in title of most)
- WP:TONE, WP:PEACOCK, serious trouble here
- WP:NPOV, WP:NOTPROMOTION. pretty bad
- WP:SECTIONS. easy fix, might as well
- WP:MOS, can defer most of the other minor fixes until in mainspace
These are all still problems, to my eye, except maybe WP:RS. Obviously, not all of it needs to be fixed before moving to mainspace. The key is to prove WP:N by showing significant coverage by independent reliable sources. The next key is WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:PEACOCK and friends. The article is clearly an advertorial, written by somebody who is trying to show how famous and important the gallery is. Gotta plain-jane the language, gotta delete all the non-WP:NOTEWORTHY name-dropping, gotta cite the accolades with direct quotations from important sources. Also, seems clear that criticism is entirely elided here, ditto for context; somebody with a bit more experience/expertise in NY&Boston galleries is needed. Where is this gallery ranked, in teh list of two hundred? What is their position relative to other galleries in NY and Boston? Put those other galleries into the see-also section. This is an encyclopedia article, intended to inform the readership about the topic. Specific bugs:
- FIX. notably including ... WP:PEACOCK, delete or completely rewrite these bits
- FIX. "The success of their early work raised the gallery's profile beyond Boston" puffery
- FIX. presence in the New York art scene was secured... puff
- FIX. to their stable, ... puffery/jargonic
- FIX. the gallery continued to introduce more young talent ...puff
- FIX. senior artists such as
- FIX. roster of international artists
- FIX. significant art fairs
- CITE!. When the international art market as a whole foundered in the early 1990s, ...[citation needed] very strong, they are explaining away the failure of *their* gallery, blaming "the global economy"
- CITE!. began to show internationally-established artists such as Dennis Oppenheim and Orlan, ...[citation needed] very strong ... notability is not inherited. Who says they are int'l-estab? And if so, who says Stux is a WP:NOTEWORTHY location of these two?
- CITE. , had been teaching at Harvard Medical School, [citation needed] strong, WP:ABOUTSELF not enough ... and what does this have to do with the *art* gallery? is it WP:NOTEWORTHY?
- CITE. taught math at Boston Latin School, [citation needed] strong, WP:ABOUTSELF not enough ... and what does this have to do with the *art* gallery? is it WP:NOTEWORTHY?
- ~CITE. In 2002, Andrea Schnabl joined the gallery as a new Partner and Director. ...WP:SPIP unless WP:NOTEWORTHY mention in WP:RS
- ~CITE. folks with their own bluelinks (to dedicated BLP page) are usually fine to mention, per *mutual* WP:ABOUTSELF aka artist-homepage mentions gallery && gallery homepage mentions artist
- ~CITE. folks without a BLP are not WP:NOTEWORTHY enough to get their name in wikipedia sans an RS which deems fit to mention them
- ~CITE. giving each of these artists their first solo shows in New York. ... [citation needed] double: who says it was first?
- ~CITE. ...But say it is factual: who says the fact that it was first was WP:NOTEWORTHY?
- ~CITE. Artists represented/exhibited...(list) [citation needed] medium
- ~CITE. Doug Anderson, Gerry Bergstein, Alex and Allison Grey, and Paul Laffoley, ... [citation needed] medium
- ~CITE. adding Lawrence Carroll, Vik Muniz, Holt Quentel, and Andres Serrano ... [citation needed] medium
- ~CITE. and mid-career artists including James Croak and Margaret Evangeline as well.[11] ... [citation needed] medium
- ~CITE. Fabian Marcaccio and Cary Leibowitz... .[6]
- ~CITE. Elaine Sturtevant and Gerhard Hoehme. [citation needed]
- Cite? Stefan, who holds a Ph.D. in Immunology ... [citation needed] weak, WP:ABOUTSELF usu. ok iff not disputed
- Cite? who attended the School of the Museum of Fine Arts ... [citation needed] weak, WP:ABOUTSELF usu. ok iff not disputed
Many of the refs are not online, so it's hard for someone lazy like me to rewrite the stuff from the sources. Anyways, I agree with the criticisms of the reviewers... but the main problems are that the article needs somebody neutral to go through it, and delete all the puff-words. While they are doing that, they can convert the bold subsection-names into ==TOC subsection names=== that Hasteur pointed out. I have a couple folks in mind that are experienced de-puff-erizing, which I can suggest, but it will help if somebody goes through my list above first; they can be pretty rough if the puff is too severe when they first arrive on the scene. :-) Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- You can try archiving your talkpage to make it easier to load for the less technologically inclined. Wish you good luck on your campaign to have less BITEy templates and editfilters for the newer users. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 11:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Follow up Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bayrampaşaspor
Sorry, that Hasteur person has archived the conversation so I decided to post on your talk page instead. First of all thank you for all your help, I have added in the references that you posted, so thank you for those. However I still have a few questions, and please forgive if I sound cheeky/annoying (I really don't mean to) but I just want to play devil's advocate a little for future reference.
Would it not have been easier to have accepted the article as I had written it and then you (or someone else) could have added in those additional newspaper links themselves in a further edit? I mean techinically I did meet all the criteria, I did have "multiple sources", 2 is still more 1 haha ;) This may be contrary to the philosophy of a perfectionist, but alas, I am not one of those.
I am new to wikipedia editing, this is my 2nd article ever, so whilst I know all the basic rules and so on, I don't really plan on doing becoming a major editor (unfortunately I don't have the time), my purpose was only to fill in any gaps in Wikipedia that I have stumbled across, I'm still having some trouble navigating through all the talk pages and the such. Therefore how would one go about creating a stub for example? Because I would argue that having even a stub is a lot better than no article whatsoever.
Once again, thank you for the help, it all came in very handy :) Abcmaxx (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcmaxx (talk • contribs) 17:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Abcmaxx (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- You are surely welcome! And well, having a two-way conversation on another's talkpage is pretty counterproductive, unless they're interested in the discussion, so I offered (in my edit-summary to Hasteur) to take this conversation to your page. But sure, we can gab here. Nothing wrong with being a bit cheeky, I'll larn ya but good. :-) You should meet The Devil's Advocate, they are worth a quick study.
- "Isn't accepting articles with no refs easier for all concerned?" Correct, number four in a row. <crowd goes wild> But hey, if that's the main goal, isn't it easier just not to create any new articles, and just lock wikipedia down and throw away the keys? Hmmmmm. Point being, your question misses the goal of wikipedia: to build and maintain an encyclopedia. See Bodoni International Airport. "Easier" without improving, is not good. As you can see, none of the *other* people to create tier-two articles have added refs. Any refs. That's bad for wikipedia's reliability, right?
- "I had two refs, technically that is multiple." Oh nohz! <crowd gasps> Not correct per WP:WikiSpeak; broke the streak, too bad. ;-) You did have multiple URLs in the refs-subsection, but they weren't WP:RS because the target-pages weren't both wikiReliable. Check that WP:42 thing again. Articles require "significant" coverage in "reliable" sources that are "independent" of the subject. You listed the homepage of the team; that's fine for WP:ABOUTSELF information, but doesn't count as wikiReliable, because it's not independent. So you end up with just the Turus ref. Is one ref enough, to count as 'significant coverage'? Prolly not. :-)
- Now, it is true that one ref *is* enough to count as WP:NOTEWORTHY coverage, so if Turus was all there was, you could get a Reliably-Sourced-sentence into the 2013–14_TFF_Second_League#Red_Group article, because getting mentioned in wikipedia only needs one source. Looking at that RedGroup article, they *already* list Bayrampaşa, but it links to the city-article, not to the team-article... plus it doesn't cite a link to WP:PROVEIT that the city in question really has a futbol-team in the Red Group. Now, does this mean we should delete the Bayrampaşa team from the list? No, because in fact the truth is that there is a Bayrampaşa team, and they are in the Red Group. But adding a ref, *proves* it is the truth. That ref, therefore, improves the encyclopedia: makes it more reliable overall, includes a link to a reliable source that readers can check for more details, and verifies the truth about the Red Group. Makes sense? That's why, up at the top, there is the ugly snarky banner: "This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve [it]."
- But to create a dedicated article Bayrampaşaspor must go beyond WP:NOTEWORTHY and achieve the stronger WP:N, which is boiled down into WP:42. That demands "significant" coverage. That means, some depth, and some breadth. Look at the Haber-ref: no depth, right? Just historical scores. But that is a newspaper, a national newspaper in fact, and by definition of wikiReliable therefore counts, and adds breadth of coverage. Look at the Beyaz Gazette, a ton of little stories, covering a dozen games; a reasonable bit of depth there, overall, but we count it as *one* source for WP:N assessment-purposes, rather than multiple, because it's the same publisher (or maybe it would count for one-and-a-half... "signficant" coverage is purposely kept fuzzy). Typically, the rule of thumb 'definition' for significant coverage is that you need three independent wikiReliable sources which cover the subject in some depth (i.e. several paragraphs not just passing mention), preferably with the subject's name directly in the title, and preferably from three different publishers and three distinct authors.
- Anyhoo, you are correct that WP:PERFECT is only the long-term goal, not the immediate requirement. There are plenty of articles which are nowhere near perfect. There are plenty of *missing* articles about wikiNotable subjects like Bayrampaşaspor, for that matter. The point of AfC is never to make articles perfect: it is to get them to the state where they have a 50% chance of surviving WP:AfD (aka the article-lynch-mob) once moved into mainspace. But the requirements of AfC are pretty minimal: make sure it's not a WP:BLPTALK violation, make sure it's not a WP:COPYVIO infringement, make sure it's WP:NOTPROMOTION (aka not spam), and make sure it achieves WP:42. Plenty of people who actually *volunteer* at AfC try to impose higher standards; Hasteur isn't one of those, that I've seen, they tend to make good calls. As for your article, it's pretty solid now, on those counts. So I'd go ahead and hit resubmit, to alert another reviewer you're ready.
- Actually, I should ask about copyright... did you write all the sentences yourself? No cutting and pasting from the German magazine, no cutting and pasting from the team's homepage? *Usually* cutting and pasting from another wikipedia project, like the Turkish wikipedia, is okay... but only if *that* project didn't violate copyright (i.e. the author of the Turkish wiki-article might have done some cut-n-pasting from the team's Turkish homepage & we don't want to repeat the same error).
- As for your last question, rather than immediately creating the stub ourselves in mainspace, you *can* instead re-submit the article (click the blue button then click save when prompted) into the AfC queue, for another reviewer to come along. This sometimes takes 3 weeks, but sometimes it only takes 3 days. If you're in a burning hurry for a stub in mainspace, we can bypass AfC, but usually the reviewers have good advice, and it saves the NPP/AfD hassles later. Up to you though, I can show you the ropes of direct creation if you like; it's definitely a bit more heart-pounding, I should warn you, but I think you know enough now to take the plunge. :-)
- Second article, eh? Pretty cool. Unfortunately for you, many of us also once "had plans" about not becoming major editors... before we became WP:ADDICTED that is! <grin> The good thing about wikipedia is there is no WP:DEADLINE, it is for the ages. I was exactly the sort of editor that was happy filling in gaps, polishing a bit here and there, for many moons. Put tens of thousands of people like that to work, and pretty soon you've got a top-ten-website! Sorry about the TLDR answer, hope it filled in some metaphorical gaps for you. I messed with the article a bit further; you can see what I did here.[144] Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I did not expect such a lengthy reply so I'm impressed haha, and once again thank you.
I'm still a bit confused on the stub thing, can you or can't you make one? Because like you said, there are plenty of gaps and our beloved Bayrampasaspor is a great example; everyone knows they're a football team from Bayrampasa, Istanbul, and play in the third tier, having even that one sentence "Bayrampasaspor is a football team from Bayrampasa, Istanbul" betters Wikipedia right? I realise that the reliability and worthyness of the article should be as high as possible, and that proof should be shown everywhere possible, but just because it is not backed up that they are in the "Red Group" by a newspaper link does not mean that the artcle shouldn't exist, because after all, I could just be a supporter of another team in the league and have actually seen Bayrampasaspor play with my own eyes, and there is no link or reference for "man goes on away football trip, sees them play".
As for article itself, I have hit review, so just waiting on that now. As for copyright you need not worry, I wrote it all myself, no copying or pasting of any kind, what I wrote was based though loosely what I could make out of google translate's Turkish wikipedia counterpart.Abcmaxx (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, sounds good; no copyvio problems, we have enough cites prolly, prose is neutral, ready to go. ((And as a bonus, Haret newspaper cite mentioned red-group, via which teams they played; we've got the vast majority of the inline cites we need now. Though some of the club-history and some of the things like stadium-capacity are WP:ABOUTSELF cites, such things aren't controversial.)) If you want to wait for an AfC reviewer, that's prolly least painful. They cover the article with magic juices before they push it into mainspace, which makes it less likely to be nominated for deletion by RCP/NPP/CVUA wikiCops. However, to make an article directly in mainspace yourself, bypassing AfC and foregoing the magic juices, you follow the procedure outlined in option#2, of the three options here — WP:CREATE#How_to_create_a_page. As you can see from the instructions, you as a registered-uid can create the article, whereas moi cannot, that's one of the niggly punishments of being an anon, rather than a logged-in-username. :-)
- In this case, we've already written the article-contents, gathered refs, and all that stuff. So, go into the AfC article inside browser tab#1, open a new tab#2 with wikipedia, search for Bayrampaşaspor, click on the "you may create the page" part, and then you should be editing mainspace in tab#2. Switch back to tab#1, click edit *there* so that you're editing AfC in tab#1. Then you can select all the wikitext, copy it, switch to tab#2, and paste it. Before you save tab#2, you should delete the AfC-template-stuff, it doesn't belong in mainspace.
what to keep, and what to delete, when pasting manually from the AfC queue into mainspace
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Clear as mud? Okay then. :-) There actually is a category for 'man goes on a football-related away-trip and sees them play' ... unfortunately, that category is call WP:OR which stands for "no original research". If you have ever heard of the Odyssey#Synopsis, it was the story of a guy who went on a warfare-related away-trip, and saw all this crazy stuff: a fruit which tastes so good you immediately lose all your memories, an island of twenty-foot-tall one-eyed shepherds (that eat humans when they can catch them), a magical sack full of storms, a sorceress that turns men into pigs, an underworld full of ghosts (which can be summoned and speak of distant events to the living), the evil sirens that cause shipwrecks for LULZ, a six-headed cliff-monster, immortal gods walking around in disguises (plus sometimes disguising mortals that please them) and regularly interfering with the course of human events, and a trick-shot with an arrow which knocks aside a dozen axe-heads before hitting the target Right.In.The.Middle! <grin> It's a good story, for certain. The guy didn't bring back any newspaper-clippings, though, or any URLs from online magazines. Wikipedia doesn't have *too* many people show up claiming that they were shipwrecked by Poseidon, but there are a lot of crazy stories on the internet, not all of them true. That's the *real* reason for the no-original-research policy. Making sure that we have some newspaper/magazine/teevee/similar stuff, wich proves that the topic *is* not just something that exists but really WP:NOTEWORTHY, is good hygiene.
- Plus, fair is fair, right? If other articles aren't supposed to be created without cites to wikiReliable Sources (newspaper/teevee/zines/etc), it is hardly fair if *ours* is let off the hook, methinks. Anyways, your point that adding one sentence of truth, is an improvement to wikipedia, is well-taken. We've got more than one sentence, we've got a whole slew of facts, nice and neutral, with the cites to prove WP:N decently well. If you'd rather hang out and wait for somebody experienced to come be the reviewer at AfC, that will prolly be the easiest pathway forward. Getting reviewed by AfC beforehand, makes the NPP-RCP-guardians have less-itchy trigger-fingers. If you're in a hurry, see the instructions above, you can create the article in mainspace yourself, immediately. Some guardian with an itchy-trigger-finger will probably come along and mark it for deletion (a big ugly banner will appear at the top if they do). In that case, just click on the link in the ugly banner, and explain that we've got the sources, but we need a Turkish translator to really understand what they say. Also, it will help if you mention the new article to somebody over at WP:WikiProject_Soccer, since they can prolly help with the article one way or another. Thanks for improving wikipedia, feel free to leave me a note if you need anything; also, the WP:TEAHOUSE folks are friendly and helpful, if you have a quick question and I'm not handy. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- I created the article, almost made a mess of it because the review was still waiting at the same time the article already exists? Ugh anyway I think it's all there now. Funny that you mention the Odysseus and his men, happens to bring me back to the bad days of school as this was one the book I knew inside out in order to pass. As magical as away trips can be, don't think going to stadium to see your team play once or twice a season equals a visiting Circe, for one Odysseus never came back there (and rightly so) haha. Anyway this is the article, I think it's all good now? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayrampa%C5%9Faspor Abcmaxx (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delayed auto-redirect-entry from wikipedia-search (and maybe google-search?) could have something to do with whether the page is 'patrolled' yet by the WP:NPP and WP:RCF people. That said, searching in http://duckduckgo.com showed it to me (a few hours later); it is not instantaneous though, there is a delay while the search-crawlers of the search-engines do their job. However, maybe you are not typing the special Turkish letters? In any case, we (meaning you :-) definitely should make a wikipedia-redirect from the latinized form into the official Turkish form....
- Please type this into the wikipedia-search-box and hit enter: Bayrampasaspor
- Click on the create-this-page link
- Put the following one-liner into the page-contents, and save: #REDIRECT [[Bayrampaşaspor]]
- Afterwards, verify that both links properly take you to the article...
- ... Bayrampasaspor and Bayrampaşaspor should both be blue (after step three is complete)
- As for the draft in the AfC queue, there are two problems to solve. First, we don't want to waste anybody's time with it, so we can leave a comment that you manually went ahead and promoted the article to mainspace. Second, the 'view history' button on the mainspace article just shows five edits, one from me and four from you. But actually, you have a dozen edits into the AfC version, and if you have editcountitis, probably want those credited to your username. :-) Okay, prolly you don't care. But in some cases, for articles that have a few hundred edits, somebody might complain about losing their history. Looking at the AfC page, I see you tried to remove the tags, so that somebody would realize you had moved to mainspace; this worked, one of the AfC regulars Rankersbo noticed, and did the redirect. So we're all good on that front.
(cur | prev) 10:42, 16 January 2014 Rankersbo (talk | contribs) . . (30 bytes) (-6,383) . . (Redirect to mainspace article) (undo) (cur | prev) 09:46, 16 January 2014 Abcmaxx (talk | contribs) . . (6,413 bytes) (-603) . . (undo) (cur | prev) 14:01, 14 January 2014 Abcmaxx (talk | contribs) m . . (7,016 bytes) (-459) . . (undo)
- One thing that got busted when moving into mainspace was my handy-dandy links to the Turkish wikipedia... there must be some rule about cross-wiki-linking that I didn't know about. Prolly going to get me in trouble on the Duromac article, which is cross-linking to a couple of german-wikipedia articles at the moment. :-) I fixed that temporarily in mainspace, and will see if I can figure out what the proper procedurez are for such a thing. Anyhoo, TLDR, we are pretty done. If you don't mind, make the redirect, and then you can call it a day, and watch some Bayrampaşaspor highlights on youtube or something. Goaaaaaaallllllll...! :-) Or whatever they say in Istanbul, gotta stay authentic, right? Right. Thanks for improving wikipedia, feel free to drop in if you want to gab at some point. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Adolf Fredrik's music school
Youpeee, the article is accepted at last :-) Thanks for all your help!! Andersneld (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Back to real life
Life's about to get hectic once again now that the holidays are over. If I take a while to reply that's why. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Responding to your message to Avi on Sapience
Hi there,
Thanks for your message and offer to help, indeed I need help to review and publish the article.
I just happen to read all the discussion between you and Anup on this article. I would like to accept your call on putting it on main space and let experts clean up the promotional stuff. I also prefer to make it company page instead, this is what I started with in the first place though :-).
After Anne's comment I'm not sure what should I do now. Please suggest.
Thank you very much.
VirtualAvi (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Avi, you can call me 74 please. Basically, for the Sapience article, we can pick either way: 1) getting some experts to fix the prose while the article is in the AfC queue, or 2) putting the article into mainspace and letting some experts fix it there. If we leave it in the AfC, we get to hand-pick the experts, so that has some advantage. If we put it into mainspace, the work will have a 50% chance of being done faster, and a 25% chance of taking the same amount of time (albeit far more taxing on our serenity :-) ... but there is also a 25% chance it would end up taking a good deal longer. My discussion with Anup (and the later comment by Anne) has more to do with the procedural questions about how to manage the overall AfC queue.
- So, explanations out of the way... what do I suggest we try? Well, it depends.... let me see if I can rustle up an expert willing to fix the prose in the AfC queue. I've mentioned it to Ryk, and there's another few that might be interested in the matter. You can also seek help: post a message at WP:TEAHOUSE, explaining that you have an article at AfC, and the sources are good, but you need help copy-editing the prose for tone. Sometimes you'll just get people that say "go read the helpdocs" but if you explain that you *have* already looked at WP:TONE but are having trouble staying neutral, and that really what you need is somebody neutral to directly help by writing up a couple new paragraphs, you might get an offer. Or you might not, WP:REQUIRED applies, but it does not hurt to ask. Also try at WP:ASSIST, which methinks handles this kind of request.
- If, after trying Anne's suggestion to stay in the AfC queue for the moment, we don't get some helpful folks interested during the next few days, then we'll think about pushing into mainspace, see my conversation above with Abcmaxx about the Turkish delight article. In any case, appreciate you improving wikipedia, please leave me a message here when you have any questions or concerns, or if you're wondering if I've forgotten Sapience. Thanks, and talk to you later.
- p.s. You should go ahead and start converting the article into a company-article, rather than a product-article. Because the product-info will be a *subsection* of the company-article on Sapience, this mostly involves moving stuff around a bit. I already did some of that work... but didn't mess with infobox-stuff, maybe you can do that? The infobox in the article is for software right now... we would like to have the infobox be for a corporation, instead, since that is really what the article is going to be about. I'm not sure if there is room for *two* infoboxen on the same page, the corporation-infobox on top, and then the software-product-infobox beneath it. Maybe there is a miniaturized version of the two, so that we can make both fit? Or maybe we should just use one infobox, and make a regular wiki-table in the prose-portion of the article, to hold the details about versions/platforms/etc. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Pratham 10:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 14:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
NeilN talk to me 14:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Read
Hi. I want to let you know that I saw that wall of text, and the one you put on your talk page on Meta (I watch it), but currently I am a bit busy so will probably not reply for a few days. πr2 (t • c) 16:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Gracias, and no problem, as always WP:REQUIRED applies. There are a bunch of intertwined topics over there, on the WWB page, and you may not be interested in all of them. To distill my essential question down, there is a scheme afoot to create some kind of WP:VPI/WP:VPR sort of thing here on enWiki, related to the search for a new ExecDir now that Sue is leaving us.
- It strikes me that, rather than hosting the bangvoting-portion of the scheme on enWiki, as an RfC or somesuch, maybe instead we should host the bangvoting over on meta? Clearly the new ExecDir is something that all the wikipedians might be interested in, regardless of their home-lang-wiki. But I'm not sure if 1) meta has a place for such stuff, and 2) my particular 'stuff' is appropriate for said place, assuming it exists. Is this enough words to explain my primary meta-related question succinctly? Danke. p.s. And if you have the willpower to wade the wall, I would also like your overall opinion. See also User_talk:Ahnoneemoos where a broader-but-less-TLDR discussion of the walls-o-text is taking place. Thanks, talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- You're aware of m:EDTT, right? πr2 (t • c) 02:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Uhhh... yes. See ocean of text, chapter 2_A, section 1, subsection L points iii through ix. :-) My scheme is complementary to the committee; they didn't find anybody good between Apr'13 and Nov'13, therefore they have extended their deadline to Mar'14 tentatively, and changed their interviewing procedures from pre-scheduled-full-board-then-full-cmte to rolling-tag-team. But they are still searching off-wiki only. I want to create an orthogonal on-wiki search, to feed them names, plus to get folks interested in the sekret governance mekanisms (more important in the long run than just this one hire). Maybe this explanation is best done over IRC? Then you can ask your questions, and I can answer quickly. I tried to pre-answer in the walls of text, but of course, that turned them into an ocean of text. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- You should probably ask on their talk page (on Meta), or the committee members' individual talk pages. Are you on freenode? (FYI, bugzilla:57305 from a "long" time ago is fixed.) πr2 (t • c) 04:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ironholds/Okeyes recommended emailing Gayle && Kat who are on the cmte, and Ahnoneemoos has interacted with Kat before, so that's currently the plan. But of course, in order to email them, it is necessary to know *what* I'm emailing them. As you may recall, sometimes I can be a tad verbose. Hence, my discussion with WWB, and with you, and prolly a few others. After getting an eyeball from Kat/Gayle, the next phase would prolly be WP:VPI.
- Yes, I have used the freenode thing before. What channel? p.s. Cool, glad the message has been upgraded. I will test to see if the change is deployed/live, later. Then I will gripe about how the codebase should have a wiki-interface with WP:FLAGGED so that I could have directly suggested a fix to the codebase. :-) Slow and steady succeeds under a broad category of race conditions. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Any channel you want, or private messages. Perhaps #wikimedia ? πr2 (t • c) 02:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm in #wikipedia-en-help presently as nick==seventyfour. We can use a private-message-sequence, and then post back results to my talkpage here, it that is okay with you. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- When will you be on IRC again? πr2 (t • c) 04:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- PiRSquared17, in five minutes. Also ping Yngvadottir and Ryk72 since they happen to use that thing, too. And just in case, Ahnoneemoos who prefers tinychat. :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- What channel? Needs to be something other than -help. πr2 (t • c) 17:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- You pick. Where does MZMcBride hang out? We can either avoid them or seek them out, your choice. ;-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're not there yet ... PiRSquared17, unless you're using the web-based client with only one chan at a time, type /query seventyfour . Or someone can start #seventyfour. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- The webchat client is not limited to one channel. There is nobody with the nick "seventyfour" currently, on freenode. My nick is "huh". @Yngvadottir: what channel are you in? What nick? I think #wikimedia is a good channel for this. πr2 (t • c) 18:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- ((e/c)) Yngvadottir, what are you, royally demanding my... oh. Oh yeah. :-) But PiRSquared said not to use #wikipedia-en-help which is my usual. Others that seemed reasonable:
- You're not there yet ... PiRSquared17, unless you're using the web-based client with only one chan at a time, type /query seventyfour . Or someone can start #seventyfour. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- You pick. Where does MZMcBride hang out? We can either avoid them or seek them out, your choice. ;-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- What channel? Needs to be something other than -help. πr2 (t • c) 17:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- PiRSquared17, in five minutes. Also ping Yngvadottir and Ryk72 since they happen to use that thing, too. And just in case, Ahnoneemoos who prefers tinychat. :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- When will you be on IRC again? πr2 (t • c) 04:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm in #wikipedia-en-help presently as nick==seventyfour. We can use a private-message-sequence, and then post back results to my talkpage here, it that is okay with you. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Any channel you want, or private messages. Perhaps #wikimedia ? πr2 (t • c) 02:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- You should probably ask on their talk page (on Meta), or the committee members' individual talk pages. Are you on freenode? (FYI, bugzilla:57305 from a "long" time ago is fixed.) πr2 (t • c) 04:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Uhhh... yes. See ocean of text, chapter 2_A, section 1, subsection L points iii through ix. :-) My scheme is complementary to the committee; they didn't find anybody good between Apr'13 and Nov'13, therefore they have extended their deadline to Mar'14 tentatively, and changed their interviewing procedures from pre-scheduled-full-board-then-full-cmte to rolling-tag-team. But they are still searching off-wiki only. I want to create an orthogonal on-wiki search, to feed them names, plus to get folks interested in the sekret governance mekanisms (more important in the long run than just this one hire). Maybe this explanation is best done over IRC? Then you can ask your questions, and I can answer quickly. I tried to pre-answer in the walls of text, but of course, that turned them into an ocean of text. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- You're aware of m:EDTT, right? πr2 (t • c) 02:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- wikipedia General Wikipedia related chat.
- wikipedia-en General chat focusing more on the English-language Wikipedia.
- wikimedia-social A relatively new channel intended primarily for social discussion among contributors to Wikimedia projects
- wikipedia-teahouse Used for discussion on the Teahouse by guests and hosts.
- wikimedia-tech Technical issues related to the Wikimedia systems.
- If you know how to start a channel, please do so, but don't call it seventyfour, sheesh. To avoid abusing the trademarks of certain top-ten-in-the-universe-websites, call it #not-a-cabal, methinks. All are welcome, though in fact, only two invited so far are not-in the not-a-cabal. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
At the Teahouse...
...you have a response to find a satellite-map for an article by ~Eric:71.20.250.51 (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Thankyou
|
Hello, 74.192.84.101! Thanks for fixing the formatting of a comment on my talkpage. ~ benzband (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC) |
| Spread the goodness of smiles by adding a smiling star to their talk page with a friendly message. |
test
mapone hardcoded.
Floating point numbers are also stored in a platform-specific range.
tswiki:GeoHack.js MediaWiki:GeoHack.js tswiki:MediaWiki:GeoHack.js
maptwo needs querystring.
the end
Thanks for your feedback
Hi 74,
Thanks for your feedback and invite to Ryk for editing the prose while it is in AfC queue.
I will make following changes - change the infobox to make it a company page, add more citations for text and cut down whatever promotional stuff that I could find.
Thanks again, VirtualAvi (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- I will see if I can round up some other folks to give it a once-over. Maybe Hafspajen is finally done with oooooogling oil-paintings, and has some time to read *serious* sources about a *serious* business topic? :-) Ohhh... BURN! That'll learn Hafspajen to call me sekret agent 4711.... HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
-
- VirtualAvi is working on an article in the AfC queue; it has enough sources, but somebody need to read them, and give the existing prose a good hard de-puff-erize-ification treatment. Do you have an hour or so to mess with this mission, please? WT:Articles_for_creation/Sapience_(software) Do not be misled by the current working-title, the article is about the *company* now, since that is what most of the sources cover. If you are otherwise occupied, no problemo, of course. ;-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- I would be glad to help but I am a complete stranger to programing, AND I always make my prints by hand. I never use tools to make an architect drafting and I am not exactly a genius of the English language. Hafspajen (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is an application-software company, no programming-stuff involved. They make a benevolent spying-application, that counts how many keystrokes the workers in call centers type each minute, and checks whether or not they nap, while on the job. All the sources are non-technical, journalist stuff, should be a piece of cake. As for good english, sheesh-louise, you speak better english than me! Really solid, in my book, don't let nobody tell ya no different, neither. :-) That said, don't make fun of my anti-grammatical speech-patterns, neither, they're protest against The Man. ;-)
- But anyhoo, I think you may be confusing Sapience-the-time-and-productivity-tracking-software, which has a simple article of 3 paragraphs and 5 biz-magazine-sources, with SORCER-the-jet-turbine-aerospace-manifold-grid-computer-oh-good-YHWH-this-is-complicated-software, which has an 'incredibly complicated 12 paragraph article (needs 22 tho) and upwards of a 99 hard-core-computer-science-papers-as-sources. Not the same company, nor article! :-) So, if you feel like helping Avi with the time-tracking-keystroke-counting-software-company, see link above. Also, I believe that User_talk:Ryk72 is planning on helping with Sapience-time-tracking, see the note at the bottom of Ryk's talkpage about logo-uploading and categories. Thanks my friend. p.s. It's always fun for the secret agent to give their *handler* some mission-orders! :-) Talk to you later. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Cool, nice work. I tightened it up a bit, and left a note for Anne, she pointed out the puffs last time. Looks ready for mainspace to me, WT:Articles_for_creation/Sapience_(software)#Article Thanks for the assist, appreciated. But don't work too hard or people will start calling you 4712 and then what will you do! 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
-
SORCER - to continue cooperation
Hello 74 :-)
I can see that final decision for SORCER was keep :-). I think it's good decision. I'm happy to come back to our cooperation :-) and rebuild SORCER article properly. You have asked me some time ago for some input/comment/help/etc. As there is a lot of text and I would like not to miss sth. - could You please point out on which input/comment/help/etc. should I put 1st priority to make our cooperation most effective?
One more question ... based on our last experience with nominations for deletion etc. ... I'm afraid that it could happen again and disturb or even destroy all our efforts ... could You please (as more experienced Wikipedian) explain me how it is and where are risks?
Pawelpacewicz (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Howdy my friend! Good to see you. :-) Zeroth things zeroth... there is no possibility of anything being irretrievably destroyed. Just keep a backup copy of the article on your computer — and more importantly, wikipedia has the 'view history' button (right next to the 'edit' button), which keeps every change to every version of every page, forever... so don't worry about anything being destroyed, that is not possible. But yes, as I tried to explain in my initial note, the most likely outcome of the most recent AfD#2 was a 'keep' and therefore the best thing for Professor Sobolewski and yourself and P.Rubach and the others to do, was simply not worry about the process. It was only a procedural thing: even if it was a 'delete' decision (remember nothing is ever "destroyed" around here), all that would have happened was a "deletion" of one of the redirects to the content, and a move of the article into the AfC queue with a slightly different pointer to it, just exactly like WT:Articles for creation/Exertion-oriented programming. So there was no point in fighting about it, or getting frustrated/angry/unhappy. If it was a 'keep' then fine, and if it was not yet a 'keep' then that was also fine, nothing important would have changed.
- As for preventing future AfD nominations, nothing can do that. :-) But as was mentioned above, the reason that TimFiddler nominated the article for deletion the first time, was to try and get outside help assessing the wikiNotability and the wikiReliability: people like scope_creep and Garamond_Lethe that know something about computer science, were the result. That was a good thing: it has improved SORCER's procedural compliance, and helped organized the sources for the better. The reason SORCER was nominated a second time, was again to seek help (Ahnoneemoos has offered to interact with Professor Sobolewski via email, while you and I concentrate on the prose together (with Martijn and any others that care to help on the article-talkpage). However, the other reason to nominate SORCER a second time, was that Timtrent knew the "no consensus" decision from the first time was not a stable situation. Now that we have gotten a keep, the procedural-situation is markedly improved. We can (and probably will) still be nominated for deletion, for renaming, for merging, for all sorts of silly stuff. Just ignore it, is my advice. Who cares where the content lives, as long as it lives, right? Right. You and I can concentrate on the content.
- That said, there are three things that, should they occur, would be very serious problems, and might even get the article deleted instantly, or prevent you from collaborating to improve it. The first is WP:COPYVIO. Make sure you do not ever cut-n-paste information from any of the scientific papers, or from the SorcerSoft.org/SorcerSoft.com/TTU.edu/USAF.mil/etc/etc/etc websites. This applies to all wikipedia-pages (mainspace *and* talkpages), at all times. The only exception, is if the information is in the public domain, such as the DaytonThesis, but even then, don't do it... just get in the habit of never plagiarizing, text or imagefiles or anything else.
- The second thing is WP:NPA and WP:NLT, which can get a person blocked, and thus prevented from collaborating. Stick to the high moral ground, and stay 100% WP:NICE at all times. Do not accuse other people of acting in bad faith. As it turns out, usually your accusation will often be incorrect; Tim has been doing their best to help you understand wikipedia. But wikipedia is a hard place. You have graduated from the frying pan now, but keep cool, stay serene, if you get angry or frustrated, feel free to vent to myself or Ahnoneemoos, but the better solution is to just post nothing, take a cold shower, and come back in a couple hours or a couple days, and ignore whatever bothered you. Make sense? WP:NICE applies to all pages at all times; see also, WP:IMAGINE for excellent advice from JethroBot in Australia.
- Third and finally, our current greatest risk for getting deleted is WP:NOTPROMOTION aka spam. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, intended to provide dry facts, in a neutral encyclopedic tone, on wikiNotable encyclopedic topics, mostly mirroring what the wikiReliable sources say (but without WP:PUSH and without WP:EDITORIALIZING and without WP:PEACOCK and without WP:UNDUE weight). Like COPYVIO, the rule about NOTPROMOTION applies to all pages at all times. If some uninvolved administrator comes along, reads SORCER, and decides it is a spam-filled puff-piece advertorial-press-release, they *will* delete it, no questions asked. There is only one way to avoid improper WP:TONE, and that is to have somebody inherently neutral write the prose. I'm the person trying to do that with you. What about you, yourself? Why can't you write neutral just-the-facts mirror-the-sources no-undue-weight no-peacock no-push notpromotion-compliant prose, backed up with WP:RS for every sentence?
- Which brings us to our fourth point. This will 'not' get the article deleted, hence it is not in the top-three-risks-for-AfD-number-three, but this fourth thing is a big part of the social problems that have been occurring on the various talkpages. There is this guideline, called WP:COI, and this other thing, called WP:ACADEME, and this other thing, called WP:GRIEF, and so forth, and so on. These things exist for a reason; some wikipedians have become bitter about these things, from experience. It is not your fault! But it is the reality.
- Fundamentally, the central "problem" is this: Wikipedia is one of the top ten websites in the world. People trust it — the readership — 500M people, each month, every month, and growing. Therefore, especially in the last couple of years, wikipedia has become the target of spam: nationalism-related spam, election-related spam, celebrity-spam, garage-band-spam, and the more usual make-money-quick-spam / ch33p-v1agra-spam / ponzi-scheme-spam / chain-letter-spam / spam-in-a-can-spam. But the most hated sort of spam, for social reasons as I said, is paid members of the marketing department, or paid PR consultants, that come to wikipedia and delete all the sources which say bad things, and insert unsourced peacock-sentences which say positive things. This is deadly to pillar two, WP:NPOV, which is the non-negotiable core of *any* sort of global encyclopedia. It is impossible for such people to be perceived as neutral: they are inherently biased.
- Now, unfortunately it turns out, the people that know the most about something, are often inherently conflicted in almost exactly this way. Professor Sobolewski has the deepest understanding of SORCER, and without their help, the article will be an utter mess, right? Right. But simultaneously, Professor Sobolewski has an inherent conflict: he is quite naturally proud of SORCER, of the achievement it represents, and of course, excited about the latest developments. Whether on purpose or not, it is extremely likely that he will find it extremely difficult to write truly neutral, just-the-facts, non-promotional encyclopedic prose. Same applies for you, and P.Rubach, and Kazumo, and 132, and so on. The analogy that I like to use is about my gramma, and her cooking. I am inherently biased, because I love my gramma, and she is the best cook in the world. Citation needed, you say? How dare you insult my gramma! :-) It doesn't matter that I know wikipedia-policies well; my love for gramma overrides neutrality, subconsciously.
- You, on the other hand, Pawelpacewicz, have probably never experienced the obscene delight of partaking from gramma's dishes. Therefore, *you* could write neutral prose, suitable for an encyclopedia entry, about my gramma. "Her cooking is highly praised by 74, who called it the 'best in the world' on their user-talkpage.(m) Mainstream cooking-magazines have not yet reviewed it." Does this make sense? In order to keep pillar two aka WP:NPOV made of granite, not made of rubber, Jimbo Wales has come up with the Bright Line Rule, which says that if you have a close connection with the topic of an article, rather than editing mainspace directly yourself, you should stick to the article-talkpage, and make suggestions and edit-requests there, while letting others eyeball your work, and others putting the actual changes into mainspace. This one-hop-removed system works pretty decently, although it takes a little longer. People who know the most can offer suggestions, critques, and new info, via the article-talkpage. People unencumbered by inherent issues, can help achieve NPOV, and thus remove the COI-tag from the top of the article in mainspace. I can absolutely say, although a bit clunky, this methodology *does* significantly help keep the prose of the article neutral, and it *does* basically make the article bullet-proof against being nominated for deletion using WP:NOTPROMOTION as the excuse.
- Anyways, speaking practically, the first priority is, we need to keep going through the prose, paragraph by paragraph. You don't need to wait for me. If you want to work on paragraph three, or paragraph twelve, or suggest a new paragraph, open up a new section on the talkpage, and paste in a suggestion about them. Similarly, if you have a complaint about my suggestion, rather than give me some criticism, give me your suggested paragraph. You thought that my rewrite of paragraph one, missed some thing, right? Okay, show me what you want it to say: write up what you think paragraph one should say, and paste that suggested prose into the paragraph-one section of the article-talkpage. Next time I'm on the SORCER-talkpage (feel free to leave me " gentle reminders" here on my user-talkpage when you have something ready for me), I'll either decide I agree, and then paste the result into mainspace, or I'll suggest a counter-rewrite of my own on the talkpage. Basically, if the article has N paragraphs, we should have N open sections on the talkpage, one per paragraph, where we are working in parallel. Something like paragraph-oriented-parallel-programming if you catch my drift. :-) Other folks like Ahnoneemoos/Garamond/Tim/TRPoD/Scope/Martijn will be free to jump in at any point. And of course, Professor Sobolewski is welcome to jump in, or if it is easier, you and they can converse via email, and formulating your rewrite-suggestions offline. Ahnoneemoos is also available via email, and can help with WP:TONE thataway.
- Rewriting the prose, paragraph by paragraph, is our most important job at the moment. Most of my other questions are ancillary to that effort. To write the paragraph on the history of the project, I need to know how many source-code repos there are, and who runs them, and what year(s) each repo was active. But until I know that, I can work on other paragraphs (parallelism for the win!). I need to understand whether or not a locally-defined EOL-script, is visible (by default or just optionally or not at all) across the network... but again, uncertainty about this point does not prevent me from working on unrelated paragraphs. I alsoneed to understand whether SOS is currently a LAN-slash-VPN-only solution, or whether it can function seamlessly-out-of-the-box through firewalls across the global internet... but again, this is (in some ways) a 'minor' point, which can be cleared up as we go through the paragraphs. In other words, if we concentrate on rewriting the prose paragraph by paragraph, I expect all my other questions will be answered. Hope this helps, sorry about the huge WP:WALLOFTEXT, thanks as usual for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi 74, Let me explain some of your doubts. I'll to propose a rephrasal of the first 2 paragraphs in the SORCER talk but I think it might actually be sensible to include somewher the content of what I wrote on the EOP talk page Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Exertion-oriented_programming#ROUGH_DRAFT_AREA where I explain how SORCER can be compared to existing technologies. Therefore, however, this section would need dejargonizing ;) Below are some anwsers to your questions above.
1. "How many source-code repos there are, and who runs them, and what year(s) each repo was active." There are currently two maintained repos. There is one at the U.S. Air Forcer Research Lab(AFRL) which contains some new features and proprietary extensions - for example the whole Var-Oriented Modeling framework (see the latest papers). As far as I know this repo started around 2007/08 based on the one at TTU. The second one is the open source version maintained by my colleagues and myself at github.com/sorcersoft/ - it is a stripped down and mavenized version based on AFRL's version from mid 2013. Previously (2002-2009) SORCER was developed by Prof. Sobolewski and his students at Texas Tech University (TTU) but when he decided to quit TTU in May 2009 the lab was closed and the repo there was abandoned (I was his last student at TTU). Prof. Sobolewski doesn't keep SORCER to himself, he is open to invite others to use it and develop it but it is a rather complex technology and it is difficult to find people willing and competent enough to do it. Therefore, in the meantime there were several moments when the source code was given to students or researchers elsewhere (mostly China and Russia - the last attempt in May 2013 when Sobolewski was invited to run a workshop on SORCER to Ulyanovsk State University) but I don't believe that they still maintain and develop it, although of course one cannot be always sure what happend to those sources afterwards.
2. "I need to understand whether or not a locally-defined EOL-script, is visible (by default or just optionally or not at all) across the network?" - An EOL script contains the defintion of an exertion. (you can see an example here: [145]) - an EOL script by itself is just a script, and so just like any file you can put it on a web server etc. but it is not exposed by SORCER in anyway. However, when you execute this script using the network shell (NSH) then the tasks defined in it may run on remote machines - everything depends on where you started the Multiplier, Adder and Subtractor services. By default an EOL script (and this particular example as well) doesn't specify whether the exertion will run locally or remotely (although you can limit it to be executed only locally) - this will be determined at runtime dynamically. This is the Front-end federated programming. Since the main goal of SORCER is to foster reuse, there is a possibility to easily (no coding, just configuration) create a service using an existing exertion - in that case you supply your script and you can start a new service that when called will execute the exertion specified in your EOL script - this is the Backend federated programming because it needs some deployment (configuration and starting of the service) - it is the equivalent of deploying a new BPEL process on a BPEL engine (the process will call other web services but it must be first deployed to be accessible to users).
3. "Is SOS currently a LAN-slash-VPN-only solution, or whether it can function seamlessly-out-of-the-box through firewalls across the global internet?" The networking layer of SORCER is implemented using JINI/Apache River. Therefore, in this respect it functions just like JINI services themselves. In JINI there is a lookup service (called Reggie) that is used to discover and register existing services. Reggie supports multicasting and unicasting. Obviously, multicast works only in LAN and may be enabled via VPN but it may be rather impractical in this scenario - assuming the VPN has a limited bandwidth, it doesn't make sense to send all multicast requests via VPN when, for example, most of them will be of interest only within the main LAN. In that case you can bridge multiple JINI/SORCER installations using unicast - for that you need to configure the addresses of the remote Reggies in every Reggie. So in that case, multicast doesn't have to be enabled between all the SORCER services on both networks, however, the services must be able to communicate directly once they discover themselves via the Reggies, so firewalls and routers may make that difficult. Prubach (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks, very helpful. Good answers sometimes generate more questions, though, you best watch out! :-) Have moved this material to the following places:
- Talk:SORCER#paragraph_one
- Talk:SORCER#paragraph_two
- Talk:SORCER#paragraph_three
- Talk:SORCER#how_many_source-code_repos_are_there.3F
- Talk:SORCER#back-end-federated-programming
- Talk:SORCER#gory_details_of_SORCER.27s_networking_substrate
- ...and if you're feeling ambitious and ready to tackle WP:WALLOFTEXT... I have a wee few older questions here, albeit some already answered... five here Talk:SORCER#technical_question.2C_about_exertions_versus_federations and twenty(!) over here at Talk:SORCER#How_to_explain_SORCER_conceptualizations.3F
- You aren't obligated to grapple with the stuff at the end (or any of it of course... WP:CHOICE applies as always); many of those questions are becoming clearer to me, now that I've thought further and read further, and gone through your answers just above. If you do try to mess with my twenty-and-five questions, feel free to just answer piecemeal / partially, for instance, conceptualizations #5/#6/#7 were something you touched on briefly in your rewrite of paragraph one... how is SORCER exertion-scripts running across the network via nsh, specifically different from UNIX bash-scripts running across the network via ssh/wget? Maybe we can explain the former, in terms of the differences from the latter, is what I'm thinking. See the professor's metaphor of the bare-bones single-user UNIX machine in that same section. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
On BulletProofing ... moved down here for thread-clarity and de-wallification
- Put more simply, now, at last, the article stands a good chance of being retained. We have a keep consensus. Consensus can change, but, in this case, it is unlikely.
- Now is the time to strip the waffle and jargon and neologisms form the article. It requires substantial simplification.
- COI folk must tread carefully. Very much like the Vogons, who adore shouting and stamping, resistance is useless. Ironically it looks more like Vogon Poetry than an article at present. Fiddle Faddle 21:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, you are back from vacation, nice to see you. Now, I say, leave our good SORCERers be, y'all're just totally jellie cause *you* had to live through the Wang wordprocessor era. (Oh, the truth, it *hurts* ... <evil grin> ... btw you should meet Lou Sander who once spent ten thousand hours of his life typing on the Commodore PET chiclet keyboard. Not kidding, at all even a little bit, ten thousand hours, I'm reasonably certain. W-o-w.) Anyhoo, buried in your with-a-shrubbery-phrasing, there is a true kernel of wisdom.
- The immediate goal for all concerned is to simplify the concepts ("as simple as possible but no simpler" to quote Randy from Boise). We must strive to use artful metaphors, to relate the new ideas to the history of distributed parallel computing, grid computing, distributed operating systems, and software platforms. Not to mention explaining exertion-oriented programming in small words and in particular showing exactly how it is different from wget-enhanced bash-shell-scripting. This will likely take a month, maybe longer.
- TimFiddler, do you think (i.e. are you worried about some passing admin tagging for AfD#3) that we need me to make a quick run through mainspace, and try and corral the complicated stuff to the side? ...during the month whilst talkpage work is ongoing with efforts from Pawelpacewicz and Martijn and myself (plus I hope Garamond and scope_creep and Kazumo and beavercreekful (not to mention Prubach and Mwsobol from time to time when we are ready to draw on their expertise). Looking at SORCER mainspace, I see plenty of complexity, but the current version seems pretty safely on the good side of WP:NOTPROMOTION, correct?
- The only thing that stuck out as being slightly-promotional-and-uncited is the SMT Software link (who are they?) and the claim of partial funding by Sun Microsystems (which I've not seen direct proof of... but we know Sobolewski gave the 2002 keynote for JavaOne or some other big Sun-hosted conf so I wouldn't be surprised to find it to be true). These seem like the only risk-factors during the next month or two, but I don't mind taking a whisk-broom through if you think we better do it for risk mitigation. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ha! Before Wang I worked for its then major UK competitor and used to beat the Wanger to deals. But the corporation failed.
- If it gets to AfD 3 it will survive it, but it is a very poor grade article as it stands. I think it needs a wheat from chaff run very soon to keep to facts and remove blether. All the wizards need to do is to learn that this is our article, not theirs alone. It stopped being theirs alone the instant it was submitted.
- I wonder if they will ever understand what a huge favour I did them by being so insistent. I suspect they just saw bloody-mindedness. I forced them to assert and verify notability. I suspect they'll never understand that SORCER itself is of absolutely no interest to me. Poor articles, by contrast, are. Heigh ho. Fiddle Faddle 00:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, they perceived you as a nemesis... because according to their (slightly cherrypicked) reading of written policy, they *were* well within the rules. But the key disconnect is WP:BURDEN here, and I see over-emphasis on that as a huge enemy of WP:RETENTION. Back in the day(™) most editors actually paid more attention to WP:DEADLINE than to WP:BURDEN, but now, anything unsourced is ninja-reverted, even if 90% of the rest of the page (or 90% of the rest of the pages in the topic-area) are completely unsourced. Not fair!
- Similarly, any new articles are put to a *much* higher standard than the average article in mainspace; this is true in AfC, see the OrderUp and Sapience articles here on my talkpage for two recent examples, and quadruply-true in mainspace. As you often say, we have the wikiCulture we deserve: deleting is easy, taunting with template-spam is easy, and experts are driven away, because WP:BURDEN means they have to become experts at wikipedia (or get HOURS of help from one) before they have a hope of success.
- We both know that if you had not come across SORCER first, before a hard-core deletionist got to it, that the stuff would be gone and all spa uids indef'd. Further, it seems reasonably clear that without help from me and Martijn with the sourcing, plus Garamond with the google-scholar stuff, that likely everything would have been AfD'd repeatedly until they SORCER folks just gave up in disgust, driven away by the byzantine bureacracy (WP:BURO? citation needed on that one).
- As it is, we've see about a 50% causalty rate out of the original group... which is a bloodbath in my book... but more importantly, they've told all their colleagues about what a crazy evil timesink wikipedia is. First impressions *do* matter, as you learned one-up-man-ship-ing the Wang folks. Wikipedia gives a *terrible* first impression, even with you and me trying our best to run the show properly. Look at Ryk72, who made four *talkpage* posts before getting permabanned, because they were TOO SMART for a beginner.
RRRrrrreeeeedddaacctteeddd! - Anyhoo, as for the business at hand... the article looks like facts to me. I've got enough of a handle on the jargon now, that I can read what the article says. I don't suggest remove any of the snark-tags, at the top or inlined, because they serve as a warning to the unwary reader that this is a work-in-progress-for-certain. Is there anything particular that strikes you as non-factual? Make a new section here on my user-talkpage, give me a list, and I'll see if I can do the preliminary whisk-brooming. To my eye, though, the problem with mainspace is that it is too concise — it goes straight from the history of the names and dates in the introduction, and then deep-dives into "dynamic front-end compound services called exertions" ... which is about five thousand words sooner in the article than we can afford to even *mention* that word. :-) But yeah, create me a new section here, and point where you see flaws, and I'll try and de-flaw-ify them, or at least, powder over the problems temporarily, while Pawelpacewicz and myself and Martijn and the rest are working towards the real solution, hidden away on the article-talkpage. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think the banners at the top and the inline snarks need to stay until each is handled. I fear, though, that the topic is uninteresting, except to those whose orgasms are derived in part from it. It certainly fails to light my fire. An interesting thought, now it is SORCED might be to ask the GOCE to help move it to become a Good Article! My own work with it is probably done.
- Wikipedia has a bad reputation because it is run by the Wisdom of Crowds. Beware the power of stupid people in large groups.
- I think a twin reference scheme to define the jargon will be a good start. With that in place the arcane article becomes intelligible. What think you? Fiddle Faddle 17:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is "sourced" in a sense... but all the sources, read just like the article: incomprehensible to the uninitiated. Therefore, I think we need your steps in the reversed order... we have to finish doing the paragraph 1/2/3/etc rewrites, first, which will then *allow* us to separate the neologisms into their own 'notes' section. Calling the GoCE folks in immediately, is counter-productive, because they cannot possibly know what to put in there to *replace* a sentence like "an exertion as the service classifier is used in SORCER and so all federations such that the exertion can be bound to at runtime are instances of it (the federation)." Once I've rewritten that into english, or at least, traditional hackereze, then we can bring in GoCE (and maybe bring back TRPoD), who can cut out the fat. Verbosity, on the other hand, is *my* skillset. ;-) Anyhoo, yes, I think we should just leave mainspace full of tags in the meantime, ugly as they are, until I've done a full rewrite with help from various folks mentioned above. Then we should have several passes of copy-editing, on my no-doubt-gonna-be-too-verbose results. Finally, at that point, tags-be-gone, with any luck. Make sense? — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
School sources and cites
I wonder if you saw that after New R. S. J. Public School was kept, Pratham uploaded scans of 3 newspaper articles as image files and linked them on the talk page? That's what his last message at my talk page was about. I got someone who reads Hindi to evaluate them - posted on the article talk page - and am still hoping for them or someone else to write out the actual article titles in Hindi so they can be properly cited (Pratham translated). You should look soon, the images have been rightly nominated for speedy deletion as unused fair use images. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I was just there. Left you a note on your talkpage, about Pratham's talkpage, and left you a note on the article-talkpage, about using an upload-your-jpeg-with-hindi-inside-and-get-back-the-unicode-letters-for-free, which did reasonably well. HTH, glad you're feeling better. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd seen your note on my talk page ... and after I finished this, I saw you had posted that masterpiece of detective work on the article talk page :-) Now I must go find a way to reference at least one of those before someone deletes 'em. Have you seen the second GA nom and quickfail? However, the article is getting better :-) (BTW, as I said on my talk page in response to Hafspajen, I'm sufficiently better that I managed to finish an off-wiki task yesterday - but not 100%. I'm typoing, for instance.) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Uh... second GA? Huh! No, I've been in corporate-land, which I enjoy a bit more than school-land. But I guess I can see where Pratham was unclear: you (or somebody) *told* them that the reasons the article fails to meet GA-criteria, is that it lacks sources. Now, three sources have (kinda) been provided. So what is the hold-up here with GA status?!? :-) Isn't there some kind of tutorial, how to bring your article to GA status in twelve easy steps, that we can offer? Pratham is definitely interested in improving wikipedia. Maybe we can just point them to the WP:MOS and let them have at it?
- p.s. Have you ever messed with WikiMiniAtlas? I'm trying to add some satmaps to the article, and need to pass in some custom settings or something. I can ask the atlas-creator, or ask (again) at the teahouse, which is where I found out about the atlas in the first place.
- p.p.s. Glad you are almost over your "cold" which made you laze in bed for three weeks. Lotta people get "colds" like that, right around spring break, summer vacation, ahem.... ;-)
- p.p.p.s. You can just save copies of Pratham's three clippings to your local drive temporarily... if you crop the photos out, and crop the bulk of the body-text out, it isn't even COPYVIO anymore (on your part), just fair use. Pratham isn't uploading them thataway to copyvio them, they are just trying to prove they have the goods. Have you tried punching in the title-keywords into the 2 newspaper websites? The articles may be online, now that we have some hindi-strings to search with. TFIW. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- No I haven't, but I did manage to use all 3, plus the one Dharmadhyaksha found online (I figured he would have said if he also found any of the 3 online, so went ahead without pub. dates for two of them), plus the one I referred to at the AfD, and King Jacob was kind enough to thereupon remove the refimprove tag. So the titles are now safe in the article history. I'm afraid I can't do image manipulation of any kind and nor have I ever messed with maps (folks tend to forget how technically incompetent I am; I can just about manage to put coords in an article using the Google maps method carefully explained at the wikiproject). But I'll leave it to someone else to actually delete the 3 images; as a copyright violation I think it's pretty small potatoes. ... GA is very, very much Not My Thing. But the criteria are of course here. I don't think Pratham has read that. The See alsos also look useful. Realistically - there ain't the necessary sources. However, I've seen a couple of GAs that appalled me. It would be easier for Pratham to get Jhusi to GA. I had to give it a mighty copy-editing yesterday, and there must be plenty of sources. However ... I don't do GA. I occasionally stand around trying to keep out of the way, as I did at Bramshill House, but that's the extent of it :-) Bed soon, btw. Sick or not, it was an exhausting work shift and I still have this cough. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for picking up where I left off and giving Pratham advice. All of us appear to have missed this 3rd nomination in the flurry of edits wiki-yesterday. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I tried explaining that not-yet-GA does not in any way imply bad, but merely, that the article is 'normal' in some sense. Maybe you can explain stub/start/C/B/A ratings? But the other bottleneck is that we have been helping Pratham too much, and now they want Jakob to bring the article to GA. :-) WP:CHOICE seems straightforward to explain, but it might take a few attempts. p.s. Are you really better, or are you just sneaking your keyboard under the covers, risking the wrath of your nursing staff? If you ARE still sick, when you get caught... because you will be caught, no one escapes the nursing inquisition... don't tell them we spoke, m'kay? I'm scared of them dern needles, is all. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd seen your note on my talk page ... and after I finished this, I saw you had posted that masterpiece of detective work on the article talk page :-) Now I must go find a way to reference at least one of those before someone deletes 'em. Have you seen the second GA nom and quickfail? However, the article is getting better :-) (BTW, as I said on my talk page in response to Hafspajen, I'm sufficiently better that I managed to finish an off-wiki task yesterday - but not 100%. I'm typoing, for instance.) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Antihaitianismo may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- |edition=October 1996 |page=182 |publisher=M.E. Sharpe |isbn=1-56324-936-7}} 286 pages total.}}</ref>) in October 1937, an [[ethnic cleansing]] event subsequently named the [[Parsley Massacre]].
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Pratham 05:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Pratham 05:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Pratham 13:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for digging
Thank you for uncovering additional coverage on the Monsters show. I've withdrawn my nom for the show itself, but left the non for the "Songs" article intact. Always love to see a SP reference, but don't knock Gaga. :-) Levdr1lp / talk 20:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- p.s. How are not registered?!
- It is for philosophical reasons: to prove this is still the encyclopedia anyone can edit (aka JimboVision™), whether registered or not. Besides, it's such a hassle to memorize a password, remember to login, all that. ;-) As I can see you may know already, from your uid. Anyhoo, on your main point, personally, I don't much care for the Opie&Anthony articles, and the LadyGaga stuff (her costumes are cool though), and even for our *stupendously* vast collection of South Park trivia. Give me a nice esoteric technical topic instead, any day.
- But they serve three purposes: first, as proof to future members of our species, that our society had pretty messed-up priorities. :-) Second, such articles are a gateway drug (some say the sam about anon-editing), people who search the internet for pop-culture-topic-$foo see that wikipedia is the first hit usually, and that brings us more readers, some of whom become editors (or perhaps donate cash rather than effort). Third, though, pillar two is defined by reflecting what the RS actually say, which means wikipedia is inherently going to be a tool of hollywood and the fourth estate, no doubt about it. But it's the price we pay for some degree of WP:NICE prevailing, in the articles on politics and religion and nationalism and nouveau physics.
- Plus, fourth, crucially I might add, why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does NOT MAKE SENSE! p.s. Yeah, the songs gotta go, glad you pinged me, I totally missed the 2nd AfD-nom. There was only one even-close-to-WP:RS which even *mentioned* the songs... which was a WP:SPS of an amazon/b&n/betascript book (by Surhone et al), filled with wikipedia-derived contents. Self-referential badness! Updated my bangvote accordingly, danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
14 or 47 classrooms?
I have solved the mystery of the number of classrooms. Some digging around reveals that the PublicInfoPath source lists CBSE schools so presumably the 14 figure refers to the high school wing. Thoughts? --Jakob (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- I actually looked pretty hard for a good stats-website, like as in, public site of the government of India, or at least, of Uttar Pradesh. And came up totally blank. I don't think PublicInfoPath has anything to do with the gummint, and they look like just a blog (or at best a corporate wiki) to me. I'm sure their info was pulled from *somewheres* but maybe not anywhere good. I'm guessing that the "14" number is from 2001 when the school was first constructed, and had (presumably) only one building. Pratham says the number is "outdated" but has not yet said more.
- At the moment, I'm more interested in figuring out how to give pratham instructions about uploading his metadata-stuff from his sony, to satisfy the copyKnights who say Nii. If we cannot find WP:V info about the number of classrooms any other way, we can have Pratham upload us a photo-montage, and use WP:CALC to nose-count the number of classrooms. Prolly makes sense to do the same with the library, to see how close that 10k figure is to reality; I'm guessing it includes EDUCLASS ebooks.
- As for the actual question you asked... <grin> ... my understanding of the various numbers floating around, is that I think Pratham is conflating the three buildings (one still under construction) together in some cases. We have
- a branch-building called NrsjpsSr2ndary at Chathang Rd a mile south of Jhusi (relatively rural) near the river, which is nursery-to-Class-12, room count unk, student count unknown.
- a branch-building called Nrsjps at Vasant Vihar in downtown Jhusi (suburb of Allahabad) near highway 2, which is nursery-through-Class-5, #rooms unk, #students unk.
- a branch-building not-yet-named at Jagatpur Allahabad (*not* the one in Oriya presumably?) still under construction, #grades unk, #rooms unk, #students unk.
- Pratham has said there are 15 classes as of 2014 (most likely K-12 plus PreK plus Nursery). Pratham has said there are 47 classrooms as of 2014, but we don't know if that counts two buildings, or three with WP:CRYSTAL, or maybe just the biggest branch. We also don't know if that's actually classrooms, or also includes libraries and closets and dividers. The various classes-aka-grades are also divided up into sections. There are supposed to be 2500 students total, but I don't have any clue what the splits are.
- Anyhoo, I think if we just patiently ask Pratham questions, they will be happy to answer them for us. It just might take awhile to get in the rhythm. Thanks much for your help, it's appreciated. Pratham has a lot of wikithusiasm, as you've prolly noticed. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Pratham 16:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
there are 47 classes only in chhatnag branch excluding library, games room, computer room , lab etc. Out of these 47 4 are in junior wing (Nur- UKG), 19 in middle wing (1 to 8) and 24 in senior wing (9 to 12)--Pratham 14:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Pratham 14:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Pratham. You should explain these numbers on the talkpage, so that other folks will also know. Add the classrooms for the branch near highway two, if you know them. I'm still working on the map-question, in my spare time, also. Have you figured out how to upload the raw photofiles with EXIF metadata for the image-copyright-guardians, yet? If you are not sure how, ask on their talkpages, and they can walk you through the steps to uplaod a camera-file direct from your Sony, just let them know the exact model. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Because
Because nobody and nothing is never ever perfect. Or it can be perfect, but perfect in his hers its inperfection, that is why chasing a dream of GA is just nothing that I care for. Hafspajen (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, but what about chasing WP:UA-status? Is not *that* a dream worth dreaming? :-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- No. Am I to statusless? What is wrong with me??? And also speak Swedish Engrish. Must have lost all sense of pride. I am like Dr Gideon Fell who is an encyclopedist or lexicographer just for the fun of it. Hafspajen (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Some of those UA things are pretty good, but the Gnomes seem the best to me today. p.s. Dr. Hafs Pajen, when frustrated, often cries out, "Archons of Kvenland!" :-) &nbps; This is particularly likely when taunted with his uncouth nickname, Dr. Half Pages, and doubly-especially likely upon getting his breakfasts deletionist-eaten. As it turns out though, the good Doktor is friends with various smallish subterranean WP:WikiFauna, who gnaw at their anklebones from time to time, but in a somehow-endearing fashion. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Give them some Bejgli to eat for breakfast, instead. You don't care for some old clothes? Hafspajen (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- No. Am I to statusless? What is wrong with me??? And also speak Swedish Engrish. Must have lost all sense of pride. I am like Dr Gideon Fell who is an encyclopedist or lexicographer just for the fun of it. Hafspajen (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
 
|
The Surreal Barnstar |
| ...................................................................................................... A baby alligator for you! Hafspajen (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC) |
RE: uh oh....
That's good news. Thanks for the guidance and advice! --MorrowStravis (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Replied on your talkpage (well... open tab with a reply). I might even click save someday. ;-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi mate
[146] Hope you can endorse my comments. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 22:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks WCM, I'm working on my reply here. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hey WCM, nice to hear from you, despite strained circumstances. The good news is, I redacted my first response to you, which included "fuck" in a bunch of the sentences. ;-) Not your fault though. A big part of the reason for my frustration, is that AGK has semi-prot-locked the arbcom page, to prevent me (and somebody with jersey-number 204 from Canada) from contributing any further, so I've been biting my tongue over a week now. Especially as AGK is flat wrong on the policy he cited, there's an explicit exception for anon, as opposed to alt-uid, participation. Anyhoo, the bad news is, Hasteur has just quit AfC (well... as of the time I started writing this... it has been longer now), shortly below the arb-page-comment of yours, that you linked to. This severely frustrates me, as he was an asset. It is also bitterly blackly humourous: Kafziel retired to avoid ahrbcohm drahmahz, once it became apparent a good portion of the arbs sought to wield the banhammer, and now Hasteur is also retiring to do the same. End result of arbcom is banning all parties from what they do best, and creating a bunch of new grudges that didn't exist beforehand!
on the specific nature of why arbcom doth sucketh so
|
|---|
|
- When the case first started, Hasteur was already angry, and when Kafziel retired, and suddenly three more hydra heads grew in his place, Hasteur was VERY frustrated. So he went a bit beyond where he should, and the arbs and clerks DID NADA. Later, when the arbs came out with their, ahem, not-very-in-tune-with-the-evidence-desysop-scheme, you and the Colonel ... who were already greatly frustrated during the *previous* many days of acrimonious behavior... were moved to go beyond where you should. Once again, arbs and clerks DID NADA. For reasons outlined earlier, prolly the arbs and clerks cannot be expected to act otherwise. Clerks have to be neutral to the point of invisibility. Arbs have to work hard to be perceived as neutral, even though in fact, they were elected to *vote* on hard answers, picked for their clear-headed ability to make the right choice for the 'pedia even when it is hard and they get a lot of flak. So in practice, the arbs are *not* at all neutral; most of them knew how they would vote, before the case even got started. This is basically unavoidable, and I don't *really* even think we should try to solve it.
- But there *is* something that was avoidable here. Hasteur got angry then went a bit too far, early in the arbcom case, and nobody *neutral* told him to stop. But, his frustration was reactionary, a result of the frustrating situation (and to Kafziel rubbing him wrong), not his normal behavior. Colonel went a bit to far, for much the same reasons: in reaction to Hasteur. In fact, the whole damn thing got started almost exactly the same way: Kafziel was polite enough at the start of the AN/I thread, and at the start of the User_talk:Kafziel conversations, but gradually the frustrating situation pushed him past the point where he could stay cool. The AN/I closed in his favor, and (at least per Kafziel's expectations!) the arbcom case *should* have immediately ended, it didn't ... which was straw that broke the editor's gumption, so he retired. Hasteur, same deal: frustration at user-talk-Kafziel, happy the case was accepted, frustration during the evidence-phase, happy at the initial proposed decision, frustration at the essay MfD, frustration at the Jimbo talkpage thread, and then immense frustration when the arbs made it clear they planned to punish additional "specific users with specific sanctions" besides just Kafziel, leading to gumption failure#2.
proposal: Arby's needs bouncers... and the chefs need a wee smidge more transparency about the progress of their thoughts
|
|---|
|
- So there you have it, the solution to all our problems! Too late to help probably. Fuuuuukkkkccckckkkkk. :-/ As for your statement, I can give you the detailed breakdown if you like, but overall, it was a very proud moment for Wee Curry Monster, in my book. Not your fault, that it didn't work out. I sure wish it had. p.s. Kafziel has posted again, and stated that he will temporarily take the retired tag off his Kafziel userpage, so that the arbs can stop being squeamish about desysop-in-absentia, and get this trainwreck over with. He also noted that it was a stupid shame to lose Hasteur, as well as his own bit, but that the best way forward here is to either have the arbs apologize profusely and end the case with admonishments but no sanctions, or have both Kafziel and Hasteur axed quickly so the wreck can screech to a halt, without any further collateral damage. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
p.s. And if I could edit the redacted page, I'd be reminding these people about pillar one. WP:BURO is apparently about to get overturned by arbcom. I am struck dumb.
Principle Seven. "Wikipedia project pages and processes may acquire associated procedures and bureaucracy..."
- Carcharoth (incumbent) 13:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- AGK (incumbent) 13:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (new) 02:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- NativeForeigner (new) 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- LFaraone (new) 21:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare (new) 23:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
No opposes what.so.evah. *Zero* arbs see the difference between P6 which 'alludes' to the stunningly-byzantine bureacracy we all know exists, and P7 which enshrines it as DESIRED. <cry> 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
We have some good news
Ryk got unblocked! And the East German battleship class got kept. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Resistance is futile. ;-) Cannot believe you sang a Paul McCartney song at your april first. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
SORCER 1st paragraph ...
... seems to be agreed on talk page ... so maybe You could update it on main space? Pawelpacewicz (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'll take a peek. Fell free to prod me, and if I'm not handy, you can always use
{{edit-request}}for seeking a neutral eyeball. :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
OK thank You for Your suggestion. I followed WP:ERQ and to get consensus I proposed final version of 1st paragraph onTalk:SORCER#paragraph_one. Could You please take a look and confirm if this version is OK for You? If we get consensus - than I'll do next steps from WP:ERQ.Pawelpacewicz (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks from User:Ryk72
Hi "74", Hopefully you don't mind the new section. I just wanted to drop a quick note to thank you for your support, encouragement & good advice over the past few weeks. Greatly appreciate the warm & friendly welcome and everything that you've done. Looking forward to working on building a better encyclopaedia! - Ryk72 (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- NEW SECTION! OH NOHzzzzz. wait, wait, false alarm, just a new section. Whew. Perhaps we'd best begin your post-unblock training with WP:BOLD. :-) Go forth and walk the green grass of freedom, as Bill The Cat might say. Digital freedom, at least. Drop in any time to need a hand, or wish to gab. I'm glad. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm likewise glad. I still have a WP:TLDR response to write up for you on "things Pinnacalian - names, policies, forks & futbol"; but think I should honour the commitment to give VirtualAvi a hand with Sapience first. I might get you or Hafspajen to cast your eyes over it once done. Thanks again for all your advice. I've learned a lot from you - Ryk72 (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi 74!
I left you a messege on my talk page. I think i found the contract number. --Clover1991 (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi 74!
How are you? I have been in transition for a while and waiting for some new articles on DUROMAC. Unfortunatly not much luck, do you think we can start working on the page again? Thank you. --Clover1991 (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi 4711.... 1174!
Have you abandoned me already? Hafspajen (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Why on earth you want to pronounce it? You are suposed to eat it, not talk about it. Maybe with a little bacon on.Hafspajen (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've never seen it in the real-o-verse, but it looks tasty from the stock photos in the wikiverse. (bacon? now you are pulling my leg.) If you wanna order it in the pastry-shoppe, you gottstah be able to pronoun-si-fi-kiey it, right? Right. :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- You just say:BBBbbbb and point.... (BBbbb with poppy seeds, if you feel to be more articulate). And now you are pulling my leg. What do you mean never seen it but it looks tasty? Try something else. Hafspajen (talk) 06:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've never seen it in the real-o-verse, but it looks tasty from the stock photos in the wikiverse. (bacon? now you are pulling my leg.) If you wanna order it in the pastry-shoppe, you gottstah be able to pronoun-si-fi-kiey it, right? Right. :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Why on earth you want to pronounce it? You are suposed to eat it, not talk about it. Maybe with a little bacon on.Hafspajen (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's more like it. Hold the dill-sauce, hold the yellow-colored variant, hold the MSG. Nice tender Gadus morhua plus to-the-tooth-cooked semolina durum. It's 100% Kvenland-approved, you know! :-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
redirect request
p.s. Can you please fix semolina durum so that it points to Durum#Uses for me? Paste this into the new semolina durum page:
#REDIRECT [[Durum#Uses]]
Then you should see bluelinks where they belong. Then, since you are being so useful, you can make the same thing for durum semolina, durhum semolina, and semolina durhum, plus pasta secca[147] maybe. Now this is a challenge, I realize, but don't worry because I already cleared these work-units, Drmies will be mailing you a cheque, just clock in and clock out on their talkpage, and specify this one is on the pasta account, or at least, on account of the pasta. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- for future use... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Articles_for_creation/Redirects .... thanks to huon for the pointer 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
insightful commentary by wise kind good-looking fabulously-wealthy people
- Hi, but not 4711, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- ((e/c)) Gerda, do *not* just toss that number around! Audrey Hepburn wore it! Das Boot commandos bathed in it! It is a secret agent number only Hafspajen knows as my spy-handler! Wait. Wait. Wait... if you know the number, you must also be part of the not-a-cabal! Okay, okay, I was nervous there for a minute that somebody had let out the secret. I mean, sekrit. So, you got any commands for me? You wanna work on Hako some more? Or are you just here looking for some chow? :-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- I like the number! It was the zip code of a dear relative (before we got 5-digit ones that nobody can remember.) I liked you saying " I would be delighted to see you again" to my #1 friend, whose name - after outing - everybody knows, - enjoy one link going to "awesomely weird" - I still look for a good translation to German. - I am proud member of the QAI cabal, - you may be interested: it's a group of the lost, despised and outcasts, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's not a cabal, Gerda, that's just Montanabw's wild pony round-up. Don't be silly, now really! :-)
- Which way are you translating? Are you trying to find german words, that mean "awesomely weird"? Or what exactly.
- 15:06, 24 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+242) . . Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Acalamari 2 (→Support: +1)
- 22:36, 23 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-2) . . m James Anderson (computer scientist) (rvv) (current)
- 15:26, 21 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+118) . . User talk:28bytes (→Thank you: you're welcome)
- 23:15, 20 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+169) . . Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Worm That Turned (→Support: +1)
- Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. DYK that the WMF defines "active editor"[148] as any person who makes 5 or more edits per month? :-) Captain User:Hafspajen! We are DEFINITELY detecting movement here. Tell the not-a-cabal members to get into their anti-flaming-mallard-gear, stat! — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- perhaps I should have put cabal in quotation marks ;) - if I wasn't in relaxed Sunday mood I might point you to places where our "shenigans" (whatever that may mean) are performed, Rigoletto for example. We often switch between lost and despised, and my redirect for He was despised dates from April 2012. How do you like the infobox? Looking below: I don't care if I have to observe this absurd restriction or that absurd restriction, find it quite amusing actually ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Before you get lost in the Flour, I might just tell you that is made with potato - starch nowadays... sorry - the fishballs. Hafspajen (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Potatoe pancakes? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, you mean potato-flour in the fishballs. But I'm looking at the pasta underneath the fishballs, which is wheat. Potato-starch-flour-pasta... noooooo. Not gonna happen, right? Right. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Don't loose your secret nerves, 007!!!!!!!!. Q. (WHAT is a cabal? I never really understod that one... - some kind of religious society? or something like this.. Journeyman years Explain ... Please)...Hafspajen (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Headscratching at the semolina thing. I've always seen it as durum semolina; searching for that finds all sorts of food science specifics that are beyond me, at least once linked to semolina.
- I made the mistake of looking at the Signpost. The lead article and the Arbcom report remind me that I shouldn't do that.
- I am on IRC (as usual) if you want to chew me out.
- I'll leave you to explain cabal :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm working on it, I'm working on it, I can define the cabal and the not-a-cabal and their long history for Hafspajen. I'm just busy-busy at the moment. I've been doing outreachWiki stuff and metaWiki stuff and arbcomStuff, but at least the last one is finally winding up. WP:IAR is being used to desysop Kafziel, which is richly ironic. There is no charge that will stick, individually, but there are a lot of charges, and at the end of the day, that's the (unstated) pillar five which is being applied to justify the verdict. There is also some pillar-four in there, which I hope will be evenly applied in the future, though I'm not too sure that's statistically likely... but new arbs, and a new year, so AGF and see what happens. I'm pretty sick about P7 in the Kafziel case, tacked on kinda off-hand midway through and getting no outside discussion, which is strongly reminiscent of an attempt to overturn WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY by my reading of it. Also, Gerda is tilting at the infoboxen again, and prolly going to be unhappy with the outcome methinks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's quite interesting to compare what people say about me (preoccupied, going to be unhappy) to what I do and feel - laying blue duck eggs and being happy about the stats so far, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
redirect rationale
- p.s. Uh, apparently the durum semolina thing is something peculiar to know. Get some dried pasta. Look at the ingredients. Durum semolina, plus a smattering of nutrients. In the cheapest brands, you might see durum semolina as the main ingredient, with durum flour as the second ingredient, and then the rest. Thus durum semolina is the main (and usually only substantial-by-weight) ingredient of pasta. Pasta is made from flour; you can use almost any sort, of flour, including the normal white store-bought flour, but the traditional culinary sort used for noodles is a particular kind of flour, called semolina dur[h]um. Durum is a 'breed' of wheat (cf Bulldog as a 'breed' of dog... but there are subvarieties of durum cf Leavitt Bulldog as a sub-breed). Durum is the kind of wheat found in the song about amber-waves-of-grain, because most durum sub-sub-varieties nowadays are amber-colored. When you plant the wheat, you plant seeds in the ground, and they grow a stalk, with a wheat-head up top (vaguely similar morphologically to a cattail-plant). When you harvest the wheat, you cut the stalk, thresh the wheat-head to get the new wheat-seeds out, and then put them in a bag. You *can* eat the seeds, but usually instead you mill (grinding) the seeds, turning them into various sorts of flour-like-products.
- With me so far? Okay. Semolina is a particular sort of flour-like-product, the coarse middlings; you can have semolina corn (which Drmies would call grits prolly nowadays), and you can also have semolina wheat, aka wheat middlings. If the particular 'breed' of wheat, that you milled to generate semolina, was in fact durum wheat, then you now have a big bag of semolina durum, a specific kind of flour-like-product. It's kinda yellow, from the endosperm of the durum wheat, and it's kinda grainier than commercial white flours. But the main key is that it is exceedingly *hard* wheat, and thus makes excellent pasta (3 cups semolina durum + 2 spoons extra virgin olive oil + 1 cup water ... mix with your hands... roll with a rolling pin... slice into thin strips with a sharp thin blade and/or a rolling pizza-cutter... hang and/or non-stick-rack your fresh home-made noodles for a couple days to dry... then cook just like normal store-bought dry pasta). TLDR, durum is a breed of wheat, semolina is a specific flour-milling-technique, and thus "durum semolina" should be a redirect to durum#Uses. But I cannot make the redirect myself, nudge nudge, wink wink.
- p.p.s. There is also the durum flour, added as a secondary flour-ingredient on the cheapest dry pasta... which is the non-semolina-milled-style, and therefore not as superior. Plus as mentioned, you can make your own noodles without buying the specialty yellow grainy super-hard durum semolina, with the same 3-2-1 recipe but regular white store-bought flour. It works, just not quite as well. If you want that truly-store-bought-texture, you have to use durum semolina flour, and a pasta extruder aka pasta maker, which compresses far better than a rolling pin does. HTH 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Lost in the Flour
- Testing Hafspajen with one.ping.only. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Aha, I got it now. Don't bother any more. Everybody Looking for Frogs, is in a big brotherhood. Right?Hafspajen (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Le superflu, chose très nécessaire.
Heh heh heh! You are silly, but I like you. Probably because you are silly. ;-) The frogs-quote is from Calvin and Hobbes, which was a series of philosophical treatises in book form, but originally written as a series of koans published in the newspapers. It is exceedingly keep, and rewarding. I highly recommend you get The Calvin and Hobbes Tenth Anniversary Book and pay attention to the commentary. Plus, good book. :-)
But no, there are cabals, in real life, and in the wikiverse. The concept is related, but dramatically different, just as "reliable" in the real-o-verse has a very different meaning from wikiReliable here in the wikiverse. I can explain the cabal-concept to you, and more importantly the not-a-cabal concept, but it won't be instantly. I'm still supposed to be helping Bob Huff, don't you know? Gotta set some priorities. Have you read the Umberto Eco books? They are a good foundation, for understanding the concept of the wikiCabal. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I do read Umberto Eco, and he is really one of my favourite editors... The Name of the Rose is a good article. Hafspajen (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Authors, silly, not editors. :-) Or maybe he does edit wikipedia? Probably as an anon. <preens> I'm an anon *too* you know, just like Umberto. For all you know, I could be Umberto, here to push my novels. Cause I need the added sales-volume, for my new mansion. :-) Anyways, in the "novel" I linked you to above, Eco makes fun of many of the various real-life cabals. In the story, the bad people in the cabals win, and the protagonist of the story making fun of the cabals loses. On the surface, at least. Umberto did that... err, sorry, what I mean to say is *I* did that in *my* novel... because he was fully cognizant that there really ARE cabals, and that many of the people in them really DO believe in them, and are capable of doing Very Bad Things to any authors that might dare make fun of them.
- So in the book, to protect the real-life Umberto from potential real-life Bad Things, in the book the bad guys win. But if you think a bit harder about the story, you realize that the *protagonist* of the book was also a bad guy... he was, in his narration, telling us that he was not really a bad guy, that he was only pretending to start a cabal... but the 'reality' is, aka the 'reality' that is untold in the story because the narrator of the story lies to the reader, the 'reality' is that the hero of the story was seeing floating ectoplasmic apparitions, human sacrifices, and huge-but-unseen conspiracies... towards the END of the book, only, though (so as not to spoil the surprise not-an-ending). And of course, at the START of the story tells us, the hero was *always* writing about cabals, conspiracies, the Knights Templar, and such... for his "academic" work... so our own long-view analysis tells us, the 'good guy' in the story was pretty much always a bad guy, and Eco was making fun of cabals, while convincing the real people in real cabals that his story was one in which the cabals *win* at the end. But the message of the book is, cabals are always bad. . More on cabals in part deux of my fascinating talkpage novella ... stay tuned. ;-) Love, Umberto, aka 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I do read Umberto Eco, and he is really one of my favourite editors... The Name of the Rose is a good article. Hafspajen (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- ..Well, THAT was a joke. Editor...author. He is probably called Uncle Max. Hafspajen (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- 13 February 2014 "Uncle Max Begins Reading Wikipedia"
- 14 February 2014 "Uncle Max Edits An Article"
- 15 February 2014 "Uncle Max Edits Another Article"
- 16 February 2014 "Uncle Max Gets Reverted"
- 17 February 2014 "Uncle Max Uses The Talkpage"
- 20 February 2014 "Uncle Max Seeks Reliable Sources"
- 21 February 2014 "Uncle Max Gets Template Spam"
- 22 February 2014 "Uncle Max Reads A Policy"
- 23 February 2014 "Uncle Max Starts An Edit War"
- 24 February 2014 "Uncle Max Gets An Officious Warning"
- 27 February 2014 "Uncle Max Becomes Disgusted"
- 28 February 2014 "Uncle Max Joins The Not-A-Cabal
Leaves Wikipedia Forever"
- Hey, careful with your jokes, Hafspajen, you could get us hauled to wikiJail by the Fun Police... stop laughing! Stop laughing, they exist, I tell you! Oh fine, nevermind. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Mandy, Muschi, Misty - Muffin, Jasper, Grisou ... stand up. Remember, the The Book of Laughter and Forgetting ...Hafspajen (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- You are crazy. Hafspajen (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- oooOOOhhhh... you're AWful. But I *like* you. <SMACK> ;-) Don't you mean, crazy like a fox? How can you groan at my stick-to-the-sources koan? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- I like you too, did you had dynamyte 2800 for breakfast?? Hafspajen (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Semolina durum of course: spaghetti carbonara is thetrue breakfast of champeens. ;-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- And how is the a babe in the woods when it comes to dealing with plumbers? Hafspajen (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- If there’s something you’re putting off because it’s boring you, it’s hard, physically demanding or tiring - just get up and get it done. Quit avoiding it. There will be rewards along the way and there will be a great sense of accomplishment at the end. Hafspajen (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, careful with your jokes, Hafspajen, you could get us hauled to wikiJail by the Fun Police... stop laughing! Stop laughing, they exist, I tell you! Oh fine, nevermind. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Re
You have a new message here, thanks Gryllida (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
GLOOG1 - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Original 13th Amendment
Thank You for your all of your time and advice. This WIKI article writing is pretty tough. My brain has shut down for today so it's time to retire for now. I hope to return soon and use your recommendations and I will bookmark this page in case I get lost. Thanks again Mr. 74.192.84.101.... FWH - GLOOG.us — Preceding unsigned comment added by GLOOG1 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- No problemo, GLOOG. Now, uh, you can call me by my wikiTitle of wikiNobility, if you want (Laird Of The Anon Tale Talkpage Esquire!), but most people just call me 74, which is my jersey number, so please do that if you don't mind. :-) Somebody has prolly pointed you at this before, but it will help to skim WP:5P before you head to the talkpage, especially WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:NICE. Wikipedia is a bit of a jungle nowadays, but just keep your calm and you'll do fine. Head back this way any time you need a hand, and for fast answers to quick questions, I highly recommend the folks at WP:TEAHOUSE. Plus you already know about IRC, which is old-school but extremely helpful. Talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
NPP
You pinged me on WER for some reason, and that drew my attention to the ongoing discussion there of New Page Patrol. Nobody has thought to mention that before the page curation software was introduced to try to raise the standard of new page patrolling - which I very much agree needs raising - a whole bunch of experienced new page patrollers quit over a breaching experiment? WP:NEWT. Seems to me like one of the best possible illustrations of sad and ancient maxims such as the road to hell being paved with good intentions and the best-laid plans of mice and men oft ganging aglee. The ensuing vacuum was filled with eager beavers much more prone to tag articles in their first 5 minutes of existence, tag foreign-language articles as nonsense, etc. This appears to be the AN/I shitstorm I read at the time. In case you didn't have this piece of the institutional memory. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- It was a courtesy-ping, since you were one of the people who interacted with Barepunts (in the too-late-to-save-them group... along with myself in the way-too-late-to-save-them-group). I'd heard of WP:NEWT before, from WerewolfFlugelhornCheckers (they have a real username but it is a bit too awesome for me and I cannot spell it... plus I'm too lazy to look it up... hope if they see this they will not take offense... usually I just call them WSC but I'm not sure if Yngvadottir... who I *still* wish would let me say Yng ... <grin> ... would know who WSC aka WereSpeigelChequers was). (You also got a courtesy-ping for being in the good egg group, but don't worry, I addressed you by your proper royal title.) (And I haven't posted any Jimbo pix on your talkpage, that's worth something in my favor, right? Right.)
- WSC brought WP:NEWT up at WP:RETENTION, as a matter of fact, and in looking through the that list a month ago or something, the NuclearWarfare one jumped out at me. I never saw the AN/I thread you linked to though, appreciated. "Thankfully" there is no need to running experiments using 'subterfuge' accounts, nowadays, because we can simply observe the constant flow of incoming editors like Barepunts, and watch the false-poz rate pile higher and higher and higher. Any time we want to check the false-neg rate, we can just visit the discretionary sanctions pages, and see POV winning the day (which side wins hardly matters... the wp:battleground itself is what drives neutral uninvolved editors away... and thereby of course, perpetuates the battle forever). Anyhoo, please bring up page-curation-toolbar, if you don't mind. Kudpung either likes it or hates it (I've never been able to figure out which), and is one of our main folks pushing to get 500 editcountitis as the min-requirement for an editor being permitted to review AfC articles, or to be on NPP duty. And in fact, I'm supporting the first part of that effort, because it is a COI-defense. However, I'm also adamantly against the second part of that effort, because as you know I want to see AfC/NPP/CSD/AfD/etc all merged into one big articles-for-improvement pool, with *one* wiki-tool maintained by a bunch of devs working together, and *one* editor-pool where everybody works together and there is no longer balkanization into teensy weensy little wikiVillages. HTH TFIW. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, WereSpielChequers (sp?), glad somebody mentioned that. I found it incredibly disturbing (although the intentions were so good and what it revealed about attitudes being based on reputation, or maybe blind chance, was salutary) and watched it drive away patrollers who cared. But anyway, we are now stuck, and I could see why people think software is the answer, but as collateral damage it prevents idjits like me from actually patrolling the new pages. No, I won't mention it there, I don't belong there :-) BTW diseased cannibal rats off the coast of England!!! Yngvadottir (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sigh.[149] Don't belong eh? You rebel without a WP:CAUSE, you. :-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, WereSpielChequers (sp?), glad somebody mentioned that. I found it incredibly disturbing (although the intentions were so good and what it revealed about attitudes being based on reputation, or maybe blind chance, was salutary) and watched it drive away patrollers who cared. But anyway, we are now stuck, and I could see why people think software is the answer, but as collateral damage it prevents idjits like me from actually patrolling the new pages. No, I won't mention it there, I don't belong there :-) BTW diseased cannibal rats off the coast of England!!! Yngvadottir (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Constance Wagner page revisions
Hi 74, Thank you so much for your interest and information. I'd prefer Option 1. So far I've been bumbling along and hoping to get it right before long. I will be using the resources you mentioned.Morgan Le Fay (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)--Morgan Le Fay (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
... whoa. I like you.
I think BM's talkpage is the first time I've encountered you. You are kind of awesome. Please feel free to drop me a note if you ever need something un-semi'ed or something. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Wow thanks... :-) Better be careful what you ask for Kevin, I have something in mind that Sandstein put under semi-prot for *very* good reasons in the discretionary-sanctions zone. :-) Kind words much appreciated, but I have the advantage that names are easier to remember than numbers, so I think we've met once before. Didn't you help with Wiki-PR back in November-ish when there were some move-discussions? Yes, that is you.
- And I see that the talkpage there is still lively! ;-) The topic came up on Jimbo-talkpage, with somebody from Wiki-PR giving an interview where they claimed to have "about" 45 employees still, and further that they are being framed (i.e. conflated with Morning277's socknet), and *further* that wikipedia is full of meany-pantz-peoplz. They vow to stay in biz, as consultants that 'train' employees in the marketing department of companies that hire them. Sigh. "Oxygen of publicity" is a phrase I saw often nowadays. The article hasn't been merged upstream to the fuller COI-editing-article, either. So while I've got you here, are you thinking it should stay as-is? Or do we have enough WP:RS now to create a company-article Wiki-PR? Or is the best approach still to merge the content into a section of COI-editing-of-WP, where it will be perfectly clearly that Wiki-PR is neither the first nor the last group to do such things?
- And on that note, I'll end with your hard questions for the day. Oh, fine, third question: do you want to help co-mentor Bladesmulti? Thanks for improving wikipedia, congrats on the bit. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
88
[150] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.76.17 (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks 94, will check it out. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Prathamprakash29--Pratham 15:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prathamprakash29 (talk • contribs)
SORCER 1st paragraph ...
Dear 74 :-)
You for Your suggestion. I followed WP:ERQ and to get consensus I proposed final version of 1st paragraph onTalk:SORCER#paragraph_one. Could You please take a look and confirm if this version is OK for You? If we get consensus - than I'll follow next steps from WP:ERQ
Pawelpacewicz (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Songs of The Monsters in the Morning for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Songs of The Monsters in the Morning is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Songs of The Monsters in the Morning until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Levdr1lp / talk 20:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for letting me know. Holy Smokes, I always forget how ugly I am until I see myself in a mirror or on a picture :-). Tony the Marine (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Naaahh.. that's what is called distinguished-looking, marine. Don't let any whippersnappers tell you otherwise, neither. :-) And hey, what matters is the brains and the heart, not what you see in the mirror, but what you show in your actions and your eyes. Keep on trucking, Tony, and thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Recognizing your mentoring work
|
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
| For your exemplary work in mentoring an editor in need. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC) |
Ping
Pratham left a note for you above, after leaving one for me; I responded to him at his talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti and SPI
Although I hope it will be closed shortly and don't see any merit in it, I'm not sure that he should be restricted from commenting there. If he were blocked we'd probably copy over material but as he isn't then why not say he can? Dougweller (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, they are 100% free to comment there, if they like. I asked him not to worry about it, because I think it's not worth worrying about, not because I didn't want them to comment. (Callanecc seems to agree about the worry-factor being nil.) Bladesmulti has only made one edit today outside his own talkpage, so therefore has four left until he reaches his mentor-limit, and UTC_day Jan 30th is over in about 9 hours anyways, which would give a fresh set of five edits.
- But I think maybe Bladesmulti is sad, because of the checkuser, or because of the heavy hands-on-mentoring, or because the other folks at the AN/I thread got away without admonition, or something. Or maybe they are just busy in real life? Hard to tell, if they do not say. Anyways, just in case they misunderstood my not-worry-comment, I will drop them a note that they *can* feel free to post to the checkuser page, if they like. Thanks for the heads-up, Doug; and while you are handy, I'll mention that if you have advice for the mentee and/or the co-mentors, it would be appreciated. I'm kinda floundering in the deep Cārvāka topic-waters already. :-) Thanks for improving wikipedia. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'd prefer not to guess about Bladesmulti's emotions; it feels like paternalising, or psychologizing. He's got every right not to share his emotions with us. I more or less agreed to mentor him, but I still feel somewhat uncomfortable about it; although I really get distressed by the one-sidedness of many editors at India-related articles, I also feel everyone is entitled to have and defend his or her own opinion, no matter how I feel about it (unless it harms other people, or is disruptive here at Wikipedia). By mentoring Bladesmulti, he will automatically be exposed to my (western, "outsider") perspective, no matter how hard I try to present this neutrally, and with use of WP:RS. It's an uneven position, and that's uncomfortable. I'd like to focus on the content. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- And, 74, I probably don't even have to say, but that's nothing against you - damned sensitiviy of mine... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- No offense taken. :-) Be proud of your sensitivity, it is an asset. Agree that Bladesmulti is WP:NOTREQUIRED to share their emotions, and can freely ignore my questions. And yes, our best way forward is to focus on content first, and conduct second, and emotions not at all. Turned out the lack of communication was due to my poor explanation of the 5-per-day-limit, not emotions, so happy ending. But I appreciate your advice about psychologizification being a slippery slope, and thank you. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- I prefer not to guess about Bladesmulti's emotions at all. He is probably, as I said before feeling like in a tumble dryer, second session, but - what, it's better than to be banned... I think banning people can hurt they feelings to much. Unless they are not really vicious people, this is a much better solution. And I don't belive Bladesmulti is. Hafspajen (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, you're a good man. I love your attitude; totally agree with the Barnstar below. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Agree that we should not guess at Bladesmulti's emotions, but I was wondering why they were not posting answers, so I needed to joggle their elbow. It turns out, that I was not explaining the 5-per-day limit clearly enough. They were worried that mentorship-subpage-edits counted against the limit. But edits to the mentorship page are unlimited. Only edits outside the mentorship page are limited. I left a complete list, which hopefully explains more clearly.
- Also, I'm trying to recruit helpers for places in mainspace where Bladesmulti has been active. Hafspajen, I hope you do not mind me asking this, but do you have any interest in helping out at the human sacrifice article, which is one of the articles that Bladesmulti works on sometimes? There are probably some classical paintings on that subject, unless I am mistaken. Your WP:CHOICE of course, as always, but double-especially given the subject-matter. Feel free to say nnnnnaaaayyyyy!
- p.s. Besides the historical paintings thing, I know that as a spy-handler, you have some indirect experience with ordering political assassinations, to further the goals of The Empire Of Kvenland... speaking of which, take a gander look at *this* pants-on-fire.[151] Some people have gall! Not couth I say, not very couth at all.
- Ah, you're a good man. I love your attitude; totally agree with the Barnstar below. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- And, 74, I probably don't even have to say, but that's nothing against you - damned sensitiviy of mine... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'd prefer not to guess about Bladesmulti's emotions; it feels like paternalising, or psychologizing. He's got every right not to share his emotions with us. I more or less agreed to mentor him, but I still feel somewhat uncomfortable about it; although I really get distressed by the one-sidedness of many editors at India-related articles, I also feel everyone is entitled to have and defend his or her own opinion, no matter how I feel about it (unless it harms other people, or is disruptive here at Wikipedia). By mentoring Bladesmulti, he will automatically be exposed to my (western, "outsider") perspective, no matter how hard I try to present this neutrally, and with use of WP:RS. It's an uneven position, and that's uncomfortable. I'd like to focus on the content. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- lie: outside the area of my competency
- damned lie: I haven't watchlisted it.
- statistics: I was unaware of the ancient wiki-history
- lie: I got a quick reminder
- damned lie: note that the edits I made to Kvenland were basically making the same fix
- statistics: the article doesn't look too bad to me
- nuremberg defense: so I think a reign of terror would be best :-)
- Look at that cold cruel smiley.... <shudder> I can tell you what, agent 4711 better not be getting any sekrit mishuns related to provacateur-terrorization of any Kvenland-contributors. This madness has gone too far, I tell you. Kvenish royalty is conspiring to rule the articles here with an iron fist, shaping edit-history to crush their real-o-verse opponents, sending gigantic blue zillas to terrorize all that cross their path! Behold, the empire of the one true ruler of the Kvens shall expand at a geometric rate.... ;-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
On Human sacrifice. My last edits were minor reverts of a user who wikilink like... "There was a male and female human." Well, one user kept recovering while maunus kept doubting that self immolation and some group who murder+loot are related to human sacrifice. However there wasn't any source about it. Took maunus about 1 month to agree. But nothing there anymore. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am a good Christian... no not interested in such things. (as Poirot said) Hafspajen (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- No problemo, thank you for not being unhappy with me. :-) Well, thanks for not being unhappy about *this* particular event. I know you are still DEEPLY ANGERED by the Noodle Incident, and for that I am truly sorry. :-) Let us spake of such things, nay further! 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am a good Christian... no not interested in such things. (as Poirot said) Hafspajen (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- I love you I love your attitude; and the Noodle was a joke. Hafspajen (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- ♥ ♥ ♥ right back atcha, my friend. It is pretty funny to me the Noodle Incident is a redlink. See the explanation of Calvin_and_Hobbes#Style_and_influences ... "[The author of the work] also makes a point of not showing certain things explicitly: the Noodle Incident and the children's book Hamster Huey and the Gooey Kablooie are left to the reader's imagination, where Watterson was sure they would be "more outrageous" than he could portray.[29]" Wikipedia is following the original intent of the author, by leaving the Noodle Incident up to the reader's imagination! Gerda Arendt will be delighted. :-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- How terrible, not explained??? And would you sacrifice poor Gerda? Hafspajen (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC) (This page is like a harmonica, don't you have an archive? Hafspajen (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC))
- Gerda, not poor, but delighted when imagination is mentioned. What do you think about the Rose image I found? Suggestions from the late 20th century welcome, ye art-lovers, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- How terrible, not explained??? And would you sacrifice poor Gerda? Hafspajen (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC) (This page is like a harmonica, don't you have an archive? Hafspajen (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC))
- ♥ ♥ ♥ right back atcha, my friend. It is pretty funny to me the Noodle Incident is a redlink. See the explanation of Calvin_and_Hobbes#Style_and_influences ... "[The author of the work] also makes a point of not showing certain things explicitly: the Noodle Incident and the children's book Hamster Huey and the Gooey Kablooie are left to the reader's imagination, where Watterson was sure they would be "more outrageous" than he could portray.[29]" Wikipedia is following the original intent of the author, by leaving the Noodle Incident up to the reader's imagination! Gerda Arendt will be delighted. :-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- I love you I love your attitude; and the Noodle was a joke. Hafspajen (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- ((e/c)) In the books about Calvin, when he and Hobbes were talking, they would from time to time mention the Noodle Incident... some horrible past trouble that Calvin had gotten into with an unspeakable punishment doled out by his parents... but none of the books come out and say exactly what the Noodle Incident actually was. :-) The author is making a meta-joke. See also Waiting for Godot, when the guy named Godot *never even shows up* in the entire play. So it is ironic, that wikipedia has a redlink, for the Noodle Incident, because that explains it perfectly (an incident that we refuse to explain), and that is just what the original author who came up with the Noodle Incident, would have wanted, methinks. <grin>
- As for poor Gerda, we will not send her to the Calvin and Hobbes article, let along to the sacrifice article. But I bring her up, because she is concerned with saying A Boy was Born as the original author intended, and believes that wikipedia should try and follow those conventions. There is a bitter battle about making the page say A Boy Was Born from people (some of whom explicitly said they wanted to "change the capitalization for future generations"), but most of whom just insisted on following the authoritah of the WP:MOS. A very silly dispute, in the big scheme of things. But look at the Noodle Incident article, which was deleted *four* times, if you want a very silly dispute indeed... which ended up in favor of the author's original wishes. :-)
- You mean, Editors should remember that the goal is encyclopedic information and should attempt to set aside their egos while they are here at Wikipedia? And how about this, for a definition Cabal ? Hafspajen (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- This page is like an acordeon. Banana throwing incident, then? And why don't you archive? Are IPs forbidden to archive? Hafspajen (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm supposed to archive it, I even started doing it once, but I want to archive by topic, and not automatically-by-numbering. That way I can keep the stuff I'm still working on, at the top of the subpage. Anyways, it will happen, there is no WP:DEADLINE you know. :-) Besides, I still have to explain the WP:TIAC stuff to you. DYK that the most-edited page of 2001 was Usenet cabal? True story.[152] 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- This page is like an acordeon. Banana throwing incident, then? And why don't you archive? Are IPs forbidden to archive? Hafspajen (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Bladesmulti and SPI is number 181 entry, you know that, giant talk page owner??? what, is stjärngosse dräkt så popular? And sanctified murder sounds sick to me. Hafspajen (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Nice that my phrase captures some of the sickness of the reality, then. The thugs weren't nice. At all.:-)Arildnordby (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Can imagine that.... (don't show me them, don't want to see it) Hafspajen (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- They seemed very nice, though. That was their MO. To ingratiate themselves with a prospective victim, and wait until they had gained his trust. Then they killed him. If he remained suspicious, he was left to live and the Thugs found themselves a new pal to hang out with, before they strangled him from behind. A sort of Sacred Hunt of deception :-)Arildnordby (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Bladesmulti and SPI is number 181 entry, you know that, giant talk page owner??? what, is stjärngosse dräkt så popular? And sanctified murder sounds sick to me. Hafspajen (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that sounds correct, Bladesmulti. WP:OVERLINK is the correct guideline, for that situation. I am impressed we have a page called Was (disambiguation). :-) It sounds like we do not need to worry about the human sacrifice article as part of your mentorship.
- I will say, that self-immolation is a very distinct concept. Murder is when one person (or group) kills a particular person, against the dying person's will. Suicide is when one person kills themselves, because they do not believe life is worth living anymore. Human sacrifice is a particular subset of murder. Self-immolation is a particular subset of suicide. All four concepts are a subset of "ways for humans to die" so they are all somewhat related to each other... but they are not very closely related. See also, martyr which is related to both self-immolation and a suicide mission, but not related to human sacrifice. Hope this helps. p.s. Besides wikipedia articles, another good place to look at meanings is wiktionary. See the definitions of wikt:death, wikt:murder, wikt:human sacrifice, wikt:suicide, wikt:self-immolation, wikt:martyr, wikt:suicide mission, which may give you deeper insight. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- You (and other editors) are getting into difficult terminilogical domains here, Bladesmulti! Take the notorious case of the thuggee who, in the traditional (but disputed) view were worshippers of Kali, and justified their robberies and murders as devotions to Kali, allowed/wanted by her. Is this to be called human sacrifice? Or is religiously "justified" sneak killings something else? In my personal view, human sacrifice as a religious institution, is typically in the form of some sort of necessary, public atonement of the society's sins, rather than just a moral license given by a goddess to her worshippers to commit murder. That is, the sacrifice is a necessary hurt the society inflicts upon itself, NOT the result of having been granted by the goddess a position of morality beyond normal boundaries. But, as I said, there are really difficult conceptual tangles here!Arildnordby (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- In short, if a goddess bestows upon you the privilege of murdering others that is NOT human sacrifice you are engaging in, but if a goddess commands you to make the cost of murdering someone, THAT's human sacrifice. In my view.Arildnordby (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Some murderers and robbers, that included different tribes. People do use god's reference, that they command them for doing so. But in short, its nothing shocking. Like i pointed above. There is certainly no source. Few deadlinks though, they had no credibility either. But that is same with other 4-5 other events. That were removed from the page. One of them misrepresented the primary source(of animal sacrifice) as human sacrifice, on page. Consensus was no secret, revealed to 1-2 noticeboards, 3or and dougweller too. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Bladesmulti, since I do not really understand this, I will copy this paragraph to your mentor-page, and reply to you there. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I did not look into your recent debacle, I'll do that. I post the following additional comment on the issue, which is not a direct response to your latest edit here, but further clarification on my position! Obviously we are talking about a range of practices here, where som instances are CLEARLY at one end of the range (say bestowal of murder privilege) and others just as clearly on the other end (say, human sacrifice). A clear case of the first is that you pray to a God and say "Please bestow me the right to kill person A on account of his sins, show me your favour with extinguishing this candle!" The candle extinguishes, your conscience is clear, and you go about killing A thinking you have divine approbation for you act. On the other CLEAR side, suppose a community experiences one bad harvest after another, and a priest in his dreams says, the Gods are angry with our king, we must sacrifice him to gain the goodwill of the gods. And, the society proceeds to sacrifice the king. THAT is human sacrifice. Personally, on this scale/range, I would place the activities of the thuggee more on the side of bestowed divine privilege to murder, rather than acts of human sacrifice. But, as you probably see, Bladesmulti, many good-faith attitudes on Wikipedia editors may land on different opinions here!! Thus, the CRITICAL point here at Wikipedia, is NOT to opinionate yourself, but tie your position up to the opinion of a reputable, reliable source, but ALSO accept that other editors add a divergent view from an equally reputable source. NO BATTLEGROUND!!Arildnordby (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- You (and other editors) are getting into difficult terminilogical domains here, Bladesmulti! Take the notorious case of the thuggee who, in the traditional (but disputed) view were worshippers of Kali, and justified their robberies and murders as devotions to Kali, allowed/wanted by her. Is this to be called human sacrifice? Or is religiously "justified" sneak killings something else? In my personal view, human sacrifice as a religious institution, is typically in the form of some sort of necessary, public atonement of the society's sins, rather than just a moral license given by a goddess to her worshippers to commit murder. That is, the sacrifice is a necessary hurt the society inflicts upon itself, NOT the result of having been granted by the goddess a position of morality beyond normal boundaries. But, as I said, there are really difficult conceptual tangles here!Arildnordby (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Q#1. ...murders as devotions to Kali (allowed/wanted by her). Is this to be called human sacrifice? A#1. Whatever the WP:RS say, that is what wikipedia should say. :-)
- Q#2. ...Or is it religiously "justified" sneak killings. A#2. See answer number one above. :-) My personal view is irrelevant, because I only know what Indiana Jones movies say, and truth be told, even most of that I have forgotten (and it was only fiction anyways!). So I prefer to stick to the sources. It is the safest for the readership, and the least-controversial approach for us editors. That said, I am curious Arildnordby, what phrase *do* you use, to define the situation where "a goddess bestow upon you the privilege of murdering others" ... is that simply to be properly called murdering, rather than human sacrifice, in your book?
- But the larger point, is that there are always going to be touchy areas like this, borderline cases where definitions are hard for individual wikipedians to correctly assess, using our common sense. Consider the idea of Mohammad Atta. Wikipedia calls him an "Egyptian Islamic terrorist and one of the ringleaders" on the disambig page, but in the actual article says "Egyptian hijacker and terrorist and one of the ringleaders" which is importantly different. The sources cited call him the "bomber", "plot leader", "plot[ter]", "ringleader", "ringleader" in their titles... none come right out and say hijacker nor terrorist (and they don't say "one of the" ringleaders either). Wikipedia also has infoboxen, navboxen, and categories. In these we call him "9/11 hijacker", "terrorist", "Participant in the September 11 attacks", "Filmed suicide", "Islamist", "Sunni Muslim", "al-Qaeda member" and "mass murderer". There are also redirects, which can be less NPOV, since they are intended to help the readership locate information; but in this case, only one redirect is not a variation of his name, where he is called an "alleged 9/11 hijacker".
- Is in fact, Mohammad Atta really all those things, in my view? On wikipedia, that question simply doesn't matter, because of pillar two. We should just call him what the wikiReliable Sources call him... no more, no less, end of discussion. My friend Timtrent was involved with this area, and has good advice for the general case, of editing difficult topics. Stay calm. Remember that this is only the internet. Stick to the sources. Stick to pillar four. Don't be in a hurry. And maybe a few more wise sayings, but I think those five wise sayings just about sum the overall goals up. He would probably also add something like, remember this is supposed to be an enjoyable pasttime, not a bitter battle to the wikiDeath. :-) HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Answer to " is that simply to be properly called murdering, rather than human sacrifice, in your book?" Wikipediawise answer : Stick to what reputable sources call it, if strong divergences exist among such sources, include principal divergence at Wikpedia Personwise answer: I'd call it sanctified murder/homicide.Arildnordby (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough. :-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Answer to " is that simply to be properly called murdering, rather than human sacrifice, in your book?" Wikipediawise answer : Stick to what reputable sources call it, if strong divergences exist among such sources, include principal divergence at Wikpedia Personwise answer: I'd call it sanctified murder/homicide.Arildnordby (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure why I'm here exactly, and no idea what the topic is. The thing to remember is that Wikipedia doesn't publish the opinions of our editors, but publishes dispassionate, unemotional, neutral material collated but not synthesised from reliable sources. We may state that "X opines thus" when backed with a reference, but we may not, ourselves, opine at all.
- if we can cope with that then we write decent articles. If we can't then we should step away from the web site. Fiddle Faddle 18:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- You are here for your good advice on how to categorize Mohammed Atta and the North Tower. :-) No, not that. You are here because I cited your advice, on how to stay calm when the editing gets hot, as the old saying goes. "Collated but not synthesized" is excellent phrasing, I'll be stealing that too. I still like to say "reflect the wikiReliable Sources like a mirror" ... and I don't mean a funhouse mirror either! I also like your final point. <siren whoops> <bullhorn voice> You in there! We have this talkpage surrounded. This is the wikiCops. Put down the mouse and back slowly away from the keyboard. ;-) Gotta stay serene, if you want edit... um, like Irene? Okay, the phrasing needs work. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Categorising the gentleman is easy. Like him or hate him he is what the sources state that he is. Where sources are at variance then that variance is to be stated. "Source X says this(citation) Source Y says that(citation)." This is simple unless and until partisan elements edit the article. If they cannot write and behave neutrally they need to step away from the article. Thus we build an encyclopaedia, not a propaganda engine. Fiddle Faddle 22:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- You are here for your good advice on how to categorize Mohammed Atta and the North Tower. :-) No, not that. You are here because I cited your advice, on how to stay calm when the editing gets hot, as the old saying goes. "Collated but not synthesized" is excellent phrasing, I'll be stealing that too. I still like to say "reflect the wikiReliable Sources like a mirror" ... and I don't mean a funhouse mirror either! I also like your final point. <siren whoops> <bullhorn voice> You in there! We have this talkpage surrounded. This is the wikiCops. Put down the mouse and back slowly away from the keyboard. ;-) Gotta stay serene, if you want edit... um, like Irene? Okay, the phrasing needs work. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'd say that sanctified murder is a perfectly clear, dispassionate, and analytically useful category. But, as long as no reliable sources uses a term like that, it shouldn't be used as a category on Wikpedia until Reliable Sources use it. :-)Arildnordby (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Atta
Great explanation 74. On Mohammed Atta, "Notes" should be "References", "references" should be "Further reading", and you should add a "See also". Just a advise. You can do if you would like to. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Good eye, I agree. However, be aware that often the older articles use an older style ("references" used to be called "notes"). So to avoid stepping on any toes... and because hijackers are a controversial article under sanctions... we shall first propose this change on the article-talkpage, in case anybody cares. Furthermore, see WP:FNNR and WP:CITEVAR, which explicitly say this:
"Editors may use any section title that they choose.
...unless there is consensus to change, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."
- So in this case, guidelines suggest we should *definitely* seek talkpage-consensus before being WP:BOLD. Here we go — Talk:Mohamed_Atta#section_titles. Can you please add this talkpage to your watchlist, and let me know if anybody responds? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I suppose you earned this
|
The Guidance Barnstar | |
| I want to thank you for helping out the poor and the helpless. For your help and guidance, around here. Hafspajen (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC) |
Congratz! :) Bladesmulti (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
You have a useless new message at Bishonen's talk page.- Well, that's not very nice, is it? I would have said "a possibly useful new message". ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, I think it is a very cute little androgynous bubble-head. Besides, think about it, coulda been way worse. Look over on the great MONGO's talkpage, for what *they* got from the bishfolk. Wheee! :-) Also, you may want to stop in and introduce yourself to Tony The Marine, aka User:Marine 69-71, a very nice fellow who does a ton of good stuff around here. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Nope, no way, I'm not looking yet. Where is the jumping? I don't see any jumping here. Give me some jumping first. :-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Talkback link
Message added 05:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Talkback link
Message added 16:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Quick note
- Although your Swedish is undoubtedly worse than mine, you may want to see if you can help out SenfBaum at all. Possibly starting with telling them I am a big bad meanie for what I put on their talk page. They have 7 deleted articles.
- I am greatly regretting having written an article on a public figure - I believe it was my second - because I now feel honor-bound to watch over it lest it make this person look bad. I'm about at wits' end with the latest so-far single-purpose editor, need to post to the talk page with my point of view, but am beginning to wonder whether I'm actually wrong, so I'd appreciate any second glances and policy-based appraisals you could spare at Laurie Smith.
- Thank you for the AN/I notification, scary as heck though that was.
- I continue to lurk on IRC and I actually have an hour or so. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- If in doubt, please verify that "SenfBaum" exists. That was a joke. Hafspajen (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC) I try too, I mean to help that overly ambitious article ceator .
- He does, he does - see my contribs, or change it from "User" to "User talk". Hafspajen - what would Aneboda Fisheries School be in the original Swedish, so I can see whether I can find any sources? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Man, that bouncing puzglobe is hypnotic. Liz uses that on her talkpage. I've slain it with a colon. :-) Everything I know about Swedish I learned from teevee. I merrily imagine Hafspajen either looks like this or like this... probably the computer-hacker and not the crusading-journalist. :-) One advantage to the text-only nature of the wikiverse is that I don't have to be very realistic about visualization; the brothers W also made the same point in reverse, during the scene when Neo was taught that he could imagine his own outfit, to match his self-image. I'll peek at Laurie and SenfBaum. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the edit at SenfBaum's talk!!! I must now get ready to leave work. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hey where is that globe?????????????? I am intellectual, my dear. Do cook, but noo tatoos. Try this or this instead. Hafspajen (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Globe is crushed by vulcan neck pinch. Too much jumping! :-) And sorry, so sorry, but I'm still going to imagine you like this: File:Signe Hasso.jpg, File:Beautiful Soul CD Cover1.png, File:Agnes-Nicole.jpg, File:Malcolmsinclair.png. Not like this: File:Peter Hagberg 2010.jpg, File:Aslak 6 year old sami boy from Sweden vectorized.svg, File:Swedish Crown.jpg. Well okay... maybe the last one. :-) See also, File:Sif from Swedish Edda translation.jpg, and especially En_svensk_tiger, but probably not A_Swedish_Love_Story since I doubt you wear miniskirts nowadays, in real life you are prolly more like the intellectual hottie pictured over here: A_Swedish_Love_Story_EP. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Globe is crushed by vulcan neck pinch. Too much jumping! :-) And sorry, so sorry, but I'm still going to imagine you like this: File:Signe Hasso.jpg, File:Beautiful Soul CD Cover1.png, File:Agnes-Nicole.jpg, File:Malcolmsinclair.png. Not like this: File:Peter Hagberg 2010.jpg, File:Aslak 6 year old sami boy from Sweden vectorized.svg, File:Swedish Crown.jpg. Well okay... maybe the last one. :-) See also, File:Sif from Swedish Edda translation.jpg, and especially En_svensk_tiger, but probably not A_Swedish_Love_Story since I doubt you wear miniskirts nowadays, in real life you are prolly more like the intellectual hottie pictured over here: A_Swedish_Love_Story_EP. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, for Christ sake... Groan II, no, none of it above, probably closest here - File:Beautiful Soul CD Cover1.png. Well you wanted that jumping and now you don't want it any more. How am I suppose to keep you happy, that is what i would like to know. And your mingling with folks around doesn't make you any good... vulcan neck pinch and stuff. Hafspajen (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- See, you are starting to understand the not-a-cabal. What is the Illuminati? Well, they don't exist. They are like Dracula — just a fiction. But what are the Freemasons? Well, they are a mild-mannered group of people that hang out, have dinner together, and chit-chat... sorta. Nowadays at least. But they are also more or less directly responsible for the colonies getting free of the crown. File:Washington_Masonic_print.jpg They used to have a serious purpose... or more likely, they used to have a social purpose that was transmogrified into a serious purpose for a brief time. Look at all the people in the 1776 revolution, that were from the Virginia Masonic Lodge (or similar lodges elsewhere). The most famous Illuminati splinter was also from 1776, the peak of Freemason power. What are the goals of this Illuminatus: oppose superstition, oppose prejudice, oppose religion, oppose corruption. Do they still exist? Prolly not.
- But are there things like the Illuminati, nowadays? Sure, we have one here on wikipedia, they are called FTN, and their goal is to opposed superstition with WP:FRINGE and the oppose religion (only about half of them believe this however). They don't work especially hard against prejudice or political corruption, but it is safe to say they are prolly opposed to those things as most wikipedians are. What about the freemasonry movement of wikipedia? Well, the closest thing we have is IRC, and WP:TIAC. There are many conspiracy theories, that the illuminati or the freemasons or both (or maybe they are the same thing) are in control of the USA, or the UK, or this or that or the other: trying to take over the world, as all good conspirators wish to do.
- Usually the key is that they are trying to *secretly* take over the world, through indirect mechanism. They are trying to control society, through the judges, or through the politicians, or through some kind of secondary system of manipulating the levers of power, yet remaining unseen. Often, the goal is to control the *culture* of a society, and thereby control how that society functions. The not-a-cabal is explicitly about controlling the wikiCulture, and thereby controlling how wikipedia functions. I don't want reverting to be seen as normal. I want it to be seen as a slap in the face. When somebody deletes fifty paragraphs from breakfast as citation needed, that person should be told to stop, rather than let such pointless destruction stand. There are good deletionists, like my friend FiddleFaddle, and there are bad deletionists, that delete Reliable Sources they disagree with, and there are deletionists in the middle, who constantly delete material added by IPs if it is not cited, but who would let the exact same identical material stand if it were to be added to that exact same article... by a non-redlinked username. That is not WP:NICE.
- I intend to fix that problem. But I cannot fix it by finding all the non-WP:NICE deletionists, and explaining to them WP:NICE, and explaining to them WP:PRESERVE, and explaining to them WP:OWN, and explaining to them all the policies and pillars which say they are doing it wrong. Because the wikiCulture is what we *do* around here, not the written policies and what they say. And the wikiCulture says it is okay to be a middle-of-the-road deletionist, and even a far-side-of-the-road-WP:RS-deletionist in some cases. Thus, I have to get the wikiculture changed. There is really only one way: bring in new people, who are not deletionists, so that the wikiverse is once again in balance.
- But even to *do* that, I will have to change the wikiculture somewhat, so that new people are permitted to appear. Ryk is such a person, most likely. Bladesmulti, I'm not sure. PrincessK was an inclusionist, certainly. Anyhoo, the not-a-cabal is the plan to create a better wikiCulture, and use it to write better helpdocs (the Wikipedia Jungle Survival Manual for starters), and build better wiki-tools for inclusionists, and so on and so forth... until the way that wikipedia works is changed qualitatively, and Drmies gets their wish, which is to have crowned as Emperor Of Kvenland. ... uh... wait... maybe that was not the wish, but it was something like that. More on this not-a-cabal later on. Stay tuned, Hasso. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Mandy dear. When somebody deletes fifty paragraphs from breakfast as citation needed, - sincerely we should put that back into the article and find citations. It is here, the stuff deleted - quite a lot, too, 3/4 of the article. This guy was it, the deletionist, and I had a brush with him when he tried to delete an other article like this, not fun. His deletions, [153][154] totally controversialhe hates croquettes and distrusts rural England in the 18th century. He also hated cakes. http://www.americantable.org/2012/07/how-bacon-and-eggs-became-the-american-breakfast/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL7aCSRmjyw refs? Hafspajen (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
It is approximately 12:46 PM where this user lives.
- Surely, we must save breakfast-content! ( Don't call me Shirley. ) Your breakfast-guy is also the person who helps keep the politically-explosive Senkaku Islands aka Diaoyu Islands aka Diaoyuta Islands aka Pinnacle Islands battleground somewhat contained. They are not a bad person. They are probably even a *necessary* person: a wikiKnight who strives to improve reliability, sourcing, etc. But methinks we need more wikiMonks, who help teach the locals to concentrate on improving things, rather than bickering (wikiKnights settle content-feuds with the banhammer). 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
interwiki not-a-cabal(s)
- About cabal, as I said before, see here. And I have to tell you that NOT everybody is allowed to edit Wikipedia. Your protest ideology if fine, here - and it works too - but on let's say Hungarian or German wiki they would not let the IP's edit. OH, NO, they don't allow that AT ALL!!!!!! I Do WONDER Yngvadottir knows this, or any of the Wikipedians who came up with this democratic idea. They evil will not let Me edit either, because I am not an established editor, username and everything. I am not in their precious established Hungarian Wiki Cabal or German Wiki Cabal cabal. I had my experiences over there, arrogant bastards. So much for cabals and control. The idea of everybody should be allow to edit changed, it's kind of got changed on the way, in other languages. Some jerk guy who is established will come and review your edits and only then will they be accepted, not before. (P.S. If a guy called Godot said he will come, don't wait for him. He will probably not show up.) Hafspajen (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- We agree, pretty much. But my ideas aren't protests, they are the pillars, and wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. :-) There is a cabal at deWiki, and at most of the other tiny wikiprojects. People who run things, without appearing to run things. Every tiny town in the old west was exactly like that. There was a local sheriff, and there was the law of the gun. Go watch The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and tell me if you see the parallels. Wikipedia used to be like deWiki, it was a small town back in 2003 and 2004, with RickK as the local sheriff, a true WP:WikiGiant. Nowadays, enWiki has grown, we had a gold rush in 2005 and 2006, which brought in a bunch of fresh-faced newcomers. But in 2007 and 2008, the new cabals — plural — re-asserted control, and you can see it happening in the graphs.[155]
- These cabals had various often-conflicting goals and agendas. Most of them were not-a-cabals, which operated out in the open, declared their intent to change the way wikipedia worked, and so on. Right this very second, there is a cabal-slash-not-a-cabal operating which plans to ban IPs from enWiki. *gasp!* That means me! :-) Some of the members of this faction are not-a-cabal folks like Carrite and post their userboxen to explicitly state their position:
{{User anti-anon}}and sometimes others. That's 762 people out to get me! Can it be only paranoia, when wikipedia has a list....[156] - But most[citation needed] of the members of the anti-IP-cabal are quiet about their ideas. They don't say what they are for, and what they are against, except perhaps quietly when asked on a user-talkpage somewhere. Instead, they just act to achieve their goals, indirectly, and without usually saying anything. Mark Arsten is one such person; they are putting WP:FLAGGED onto our BLP articles as soon as they see two or three vandalisms, total. During 2013, the number of articles with pending-changes (aka deWiki-style lockdown) went from about 300 to about 900, and I expect during 2014 it will go even higher. This is only 0.1% to 0.2% so why worry? Because the trend is nonlinear. There will either be a massive crackdown against WP:FLAGGED broadly construed... or... there will be an exponential increase in WP:FLAGGED, and enWiki will quickly become indistinguishable from deWiki: anybody who is already "established" will be able to edit, and the rest of us won't.
- There are many other cabals, such as Gerda's infoboxen not-a-cabal, but this example may start to give you the picture of why they are important. The only reason we aren't like the Hungarian wiki yet,[157] is because there are still 30k people with 5+edits/mo here on enWiki (versus 600 on huWiki), which is enough of a populace to sustain historical freedoms in the face of folks who are against IP-based-editing. But that situation is changing, the trend has been steadily downwards for six or seven years straight. deWiki peaked at 8k or 9k editors, and is fully locked down (now they have barely 6k actives). Since they are the *second* largest wikipedia, we simply don't know where the exponential-lockdown-population-depletion-point will occur. But it is somewhere between the current enWiki population of ~29k and the deWiki peak of ~9k. Hope this helps, and thanks as always for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- .Well, Mark is probably just influenced by his anti-vandalism-fighting. Most of the vandalism comes from IP, too, by the way. His work would be much easyer, if everybody was to register, he would find them much faster:). My problem is really if the big bosses know about this, since Hungarian wiki is such an obscure language, and they would never edit it. I stopped making new articles for them, that is for sure, those fascists. And that the deWiki is fully locked down - well how can this be alowed? I mean, this was not the idea from the begining?
Hafspajen (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Does it really, though? It gets hard to measure accurately when you consider the difficulty of drawing the line - there are a lot of joke edits and (presumably) teenage silliness. Many people start out as IPs changing a punctuation mark or a spelling - some of us make a correction and think "Well! That was satisfying." Some people make a silly change, and maybe revert it afterwards - and that can equally easily lead to editing productively, IMO. (The WMF with their indefensibly bad research speaks of The Barrier To Female Participation That Is The Edit Button. Complete bullshit. You press the button, change something, and your friend's name is in lights or something. Woohoo! This is fun!) But are the silly edits really vandalism? Where's the line? And many silly edits - and worse - come from registered accounts. I see it every day on my watchlist, which includes some articles I learned were vandal targets - or prone to silliness. [158]; [159]; [160]; [161]. Then to be fair we'd have to estimate how many people are actually making the problematic IP edits. With dynamic IPs, not to mention editing away from home and on mobile devices, there could be just a tiny group of twits vandalizing as IPs. It's quite clear that for most of the schools, it's just one or two who get the school's IP blocked and thereby spoil it for everybody. Then of course there's the fact that IP editing is the entrypoint for a large proportion of those who later register. I don't remember my first edit, but I know it was as an IP. ... As to de.wikipedia, oh boy do I know. My German is not good, and I've been mortified over there. In particular, I understood in theory that they regard new articles as an imposition because people have to check them out and that takes valuable time, but I had written an article here that filled a gap they had over there, so I did my best and submitted it over there. It didn't get deleted, but I don't think I'll do that again. I even know German editors who prefer to work over here. It was nice to get automatisch gesichtet over there, but I was very aware it is purely numerical. And it's also not fair because they have a weird convention over there that when someone wants to translate an article from another Wikipedia, they get the entire history imported to their userspace by an admin, so there are edits by me over there with English edit summaries, from the en.wikipedia versions of the articles, and that makes me look like someone who can't be bothered to use the local language ... plus it inflates my edit count over there. Since the WMF borged the interwikis, I haven't edited much on de. I've even left what I believe are typos because they scare me so much over there. But it's not fully locked down. They would say that I am a good illustration of both the advantages of their hybrid approach to "anyone can edit" - every once in a while I save them some effort by zapping a typo - and the advantages of their caution, since their system controls and discourages messes made by dilettantes like me, and labels me in case there's a problem with my edits. P.S.: the local chapters can be seen as cabals, too; although their get-togethers must be great fun for those who like that kind of thing, which is probably the majority of highly active editors, I wonder how such get-togethers can be squared with respecting anonymity? And elections and policy meetings and funds from WMF ... it seems very bureaucratic to me. Although Wikimedia Deutschland made the Toolserver available to us, in large part on their own, individually raised dime. That I really like. A lot more than T-shirts. Especially since T-shirt disbursement requires a name and address. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- I just know that the Hungarians wanted to delete every stubb I made and quarreled with me an unreasonable amount of time instead of helping my poor Hungarian out. Hafspajen (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
If you have some food time to spear
]]Hello, 74.192.84.101. You have new messages at [[User talk:Hafspajen#|Hafspajen's talk page]].You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
How are you 74?
How are you 74? Haven't seen you lately. Hope everything is fine. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Bladesmulti, things are good here. I was about to head your direction, actually, to see how your answers are coming along. Are you making progress with JJ and Corinne and the other folks helping? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- For today I only answered some fanmail, and took a look at Sitush' friend. Regarding you Blades, I've only copied the format, and took a quick look at your contribution-list. Maybe tomorrow; it was good to take a little break. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- I made two comments, but not enough comments. I will try again now. :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hello 74. See my talk page, last section. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have replied to ES&L. I think you are doing fine. ES&L said you should not edit without a mentor. But you have a mentor (several co-mentors actually). Still, ES&L is wise, they have been here many years. We will see what they say, that we should do. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hello 74. See my talk page, last section. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- I made two comments, but not enough comments. I will try again now. :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- For today I only answered some fanmail, and took a look at Sitush' friend. Regarding you Blades, I've only copied the format, and took a quick look at your contribution-list. Maybe tomorrow; it was good to take a little break. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
► Here. (from ~Eric:71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC))
Want some fun?
Bisexuality in the Arab world is a challenging article in that the topic is confused with Bisexuality in Islam. And people are achieving confusing it, as the talk page shows. Strangely, it creates heat. Fiddle Faddle 19:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Title is almost certainly the reason. Bisexuality in $country is the correct approach, there should be no summary-article about bisexuality in "the Arab World" when we don't even have an Arab World nor Arab world article.
- Well crap... we do have those articles. :-/ And the definition seems fuzzy, but reasonably clear-cut: countries where the majority of the population speak Arabic, and are members of the Arab League. This is basically all of N.Africa and most of the Middle East, excluding Turkey at the northern tip (they speak Turkish), Iran/Pakistan at the borderline with India (they speak Farsi/Urdu... and Shia is much stronger), plus of course excluding Israel dead-center (they speak Hebrew/English and Judaism is much stronger). The wider Islamic world is the Arabic world plus Iran/Pakistan/Afghanistan... where the Quran is official religion... but apparently *not* including places like Indonesia and Malaysia (and the USA/EU for that matter) which have strong diaspora components.
- Arab world *is* definitely Islamic (often the official religion of $country in fact), so there is no escaping the religious angle, even though "muslim" may not be officially part of the pedantic definition of Arab world, it *is* a part of it: "The majority of people in the Arab world adhere to Islam, and the religion has official status in most countries." See also, File:Arab_World_Green.png versus File:Map_of_expansion_of_Caliphate.svg which shows that the Arab world of today and the Arab world of 700AD were basically the same geographical place, give or take a few countries on the edges. So it makes sense that there is an article about Bisexuality in the Arab world, and it makes sense that the article would cover ~700AD thru present.
- Therefore, my advice is two-fold. First, see if you can get Bisexuality in the Islamic world up and running: the Arab world is only 20% of the 1.6 billions muslims worldwide. Second, make sure we have Bisexuality in $country for the major Arab world nations: Bisexuality in Egypt 80m==26%, Bisexuality in Algeria 35m==10%, Bisexuality in Morocco 32m==10%, Bisexuality in Sudan 31m==10%, Bisexuality in Iraq 30m==10%, Bisexuality in Saudi Arabia 26m==8%, Bisexuality in Yemen 23m==8%, Bisexuality in Syria 22m==7%. From those individual nations, we can then write up a reasonably representative Bisexuality in the Arab world article, covering 83% of the population in the modern Arab League, and 90% of the population in the "classic" Arab League of 777AD thru 1962.
- Prolly to remain redlinks. Not as populous: Bisexuality in Tunisia 11m==3%, Bisexuality in Libya, Bisexuality in Jordan, Bisexuality in Lebanon, Bisexuality in Kuwait. "New" members of the Arab League, also not as populous: Bisexuality in Somalia +10m==+3% (but major language not arabic), Bisexuality in United Arab Emirates, Bisexuality in Palestine, Bisexuality in Mauritania, Bisexuality in Oman, Bisexuality in Qatar, Bisexuality in Comoros (major lang not Arabic), Bisexuality in Djibouti ("minor" lang not arabic), Bisexuality in Bahrain.
- To close the pincers, we need Bisexuality in $country for the rest of the Islamic world, which outnumbers the Muslims in the geographic Arab world by 3 to 1. Asia-pacific is 575m aka 40% of Islamic world: Bisexuality in Indonesia 205m (88%), Bisexuality in India 177m (15%), Bisexuality in Bangladesh 145m (90%), Bisexuality in China 23m (2%), Bisexuality in Malaysia 17m (61%). Arab world is 333m aka 25% of Islamic world. Iran/Turkey/*stans is 400m aka 25% of Islamic world: Bisexuality in Pakistan 178m (96%), Bisexuality in Iran 75m (99%), Bisexuality in Turkey 75m (99%), Bisexuality in Afghanistan 29m (99%), Bisexuality in Uzbekistan 27m (97%), Bisexuality in Russia 16m (12%). Sub-saharan Africa is 125m aka 10% of the Islamic world: Bisexuality in Nigeria 76m (48%), Bisexuality in Ethiopia 29m (34%), Bisexuality in Niger 16m (98%). The percentages listed here are percent-muslim-in-the-country, so for instance Indonesia is 88% muslim and thus just as Islamic as Egypt (or 2.5x as Islamic by nose-counting), but Indonesia is not part of the Arab world due to linguistic & geographic factors. Hope this helps, thanks as always for improving wikipedia, and you have a very strange sense of fun. :-)
- p.s. And to be clear here, my point is not that you should create all these little articles, just that you should create Bisexuality in the Islamic world, and then *organize* that article and the Bisexuality in the Arab world article on a country-by-country basis, creating e.g. Bisexuality in Egypt as a bluelink which is a redirect to Bisexuality in the Arab world#Egypt. This will help you narrow down who is a nationalist, only interested in editing the Algeria subsection (or whatever), and who is prescriptively trying to assert WP:The_Truth about bisexuality across all fifty countries and 1.5 billion people. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Have you seen this? πr2 (t • c) 03:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. :-) Very helpful. That is not the same as what I'm working on, but it is similar to one component thereof, and many of the names mentioned in the maillist-thread will prolly help me fine-tune draft#3. Strongly agree with MZMcBride.[162] Also agree with Fæ,[163] whilst simultaneously disagreeing with Fæ.[164] Not sure whether I agree with Dariusz, especially given the reality of the post-hiring-vetting-process, which MZMcBride alludes unto.[165] After I finish draft#3 today, I'll see whether you and WWB and Ahnoneemoos like it, before pulling in the rest of the folks known to be interested. p.s. What is the rule for http://lists.wikimedia.org content? Is it considered "quasi-off-wiki" in the same way as IRC? Is the content CC-BY-SA via clickwrap? Can I re-post contents rather than just links, is my main question. TFIW. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- By definition, mailing lists are not wikis, so it is quite reasonable to call them off-wiki. On the other hand, they are hosted by the WMF unlike IRC which is on freenode. I asked about the licensing: m:Talk:Mailing_lists#Licensing. πr2 (t • c) 17:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
draft two-point-one
TLDR: based on some minimal criteria for inclusions, the LongList is a set of potential open-nomination candidates for ExecDir of the WMF: this person will be in charge of modernizing the UI, increasing editor-count, and spending the millions of dollars in donations wisely (they also personally get ~300k/yr of that donation-money for themselves). For each of the named candidates on LongList, every wikipedian can have one vote: approve, abstain, or noway. Wikipedians can have as many approve-bangvotes as they wish, but only one single NoWay-bangvote for the entire list (best used against an otherwise-popular candidate which the bangvoter believe is wrong for wikipedia). Additionally, bangvoters can optionally suffix *one* of their approve-bangvotes as being approve-as-honest-first-choice, and also *one* (perhaps the same) of their approve-bangvotes as being approve-honestly-as-likely-winner. Bangvoters can adjust their voting, at any time (but cannot retroactively adjust previous tally-totals). To keep clutter to a minimum, commentary on LongList is restricted to 99-chars-max, one comment (or vote-with-comment) per wikipedian (per candidate). If you have a lot to say about some particular candidate, leave a link to an appropriate subsection of your user-talkpage, embedded in your 99-chars-max area for that candidate on LongList. At the end of each voting-round (weekly probably), all the votes on LongList are tallied up, and then LongList is sorted according to arbcom-ordering: percentage-ratio of approves/(approves+NoWays). The number of weeks is unbounded, but will probably end two weeks *after* the actual new ExecDir has started running things at the WMF; that way, we can add them to the list retroactively, if necessary. See all the gory details, inside the green box.
on how to host&tally on-wiki open-noms, specifically, for the new 300k/yr ExecDir-job, the person in charge of spending our wikiDonations wisely
Rationale:
- about a dozen WMF people are trying hard to find and hire a new ExecDir... but other folks on-wiki might be interested in this process, methinks
- the official WMF search-committee (with unofficial help from Jimbo et al) has failed to find a replacement ExecDir, so far
- this is a tricky hire, a needle-in-a-haystack search, which is an optimal scenario for effective crowd-sourcing
- the new ExecDir is tasked with modernizing the editing-UI, and with increasing the editor-count, and spending our donations to do so
- such efforts, if done wisely, will improve wikipedia... but if done unwisely, could really screw up the wikiverse
- therefore, it makes sense for the community to get a chance at providing (non-binding!) input on who the new ExecDir ought be
Goals:
- to create LongList, a set of names that are people who could conceivably serve as the ExecDir of the WMF
- unlike the official WMF search-committee short-list and rolling-interview-list, LongList will be open, posted on-wiki
- candidate-names will be added to LongList, when nominated by a wikipedian
- LongList will be periodically sorted (likely once a week), with the most-approved candidate-names up top, and the least-approved at the bottom
- the sorting-mechanism is based on bangvoting: wikipedians can look over LongList, and specify their 1st-choice, 2nd-choice, and so on (details below)
- over time, LongList will grow (more names added), and the sort-order will change (named bangvoted up and/or down)
- but at any given time, LongList will represent a rough measure of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, showing which openly-nominated humans the bangvoting wikipedians approve of most
- it is not expected that every name on the list will be ready and willing and qualified to be ExecDir
- rather, it is expected that the *sort-ordering* is the most valuable aspect, for the work of the official search-committee
- even if the members of the official shortlist do not happen to be on LongList, somebody similar will be, and the search-commitee can take that under advisement
- last but not least, it is worth noting explicitly that LongList cannot replace the official search-committee (asymmetric information is at play here)
- therefore, the point of LongList is not to replace the search-committee's hard work, but to orthogonally complement that ongoing work, simultaneously and in parallel
the nitty gritty
Mechanism for adding names (potential ExecDir candidate nominations) to LongList
- initially, LongList consists only of a few seed-names (intended mostly as a means to spark further fruitful discussion), chosen by WP:TINC methods
- any wikipedian (those with 1+ non-reverted edits to mainspace) can nominate a new name for LongList, probably in some sort of talkpage-like-area
- because it is important to keep LongList reasonably short (since LongList also serves as a multi-bangvoting-ballot!), we may need to place some restrictions on who can be nominated
- my current instinct says that, once a name is mentioned at the talkpage-like-area, it should not be added to LongList until and unless it gets N approve-votes *on* that talkpage, where N==5 or N==9 or something
- there might be some absolute restrictions on who can be nominated... i.e. they must be currently alive (no Diderot? no Einstein? hmmmm), older than age 12, a member of the homo sapiens sapiens species
- there *might* be some further restrictions on who can be nominated... for instance, insisting nominees already have a dedicated BLP article about them, might help cut down on silly self-noms and such
- the rule that only people, who currently have a BLP, are eligible to be nominated, also has the advantage that a neutral overview of that person exists (as a sort of "bangvoter's guide")
- however, other than some reasonably straightforward restrictions (minimum popularity-check and minimum must-be-a-human-adult-requirements), I'm against putting any *job-criteria* restrictions on LongList
- for instance, I don't want a restriction that the nominee must have made N edits to enWiki, I don't want a restriction they must have worked in the Fortune500, I don't want they must have graduated from a top college, etc.
- candidates w/ 10k edits, author-credit on 100 bestsellers, acting CEO/COO of three billion-dollar internet startups, Stanford/MIT EECS PhD *plus* Harvard MBA *plus* Cambridge/Oxford philosophy degree... such folks *will* sort to the top, naturally, via overwhelmingly-approving bangvotes. No need to force that result by fiat, with pre-emptive restrictions!
Mechanism for sorting LongList, so as to put GoodCandidates near the top, and NotSoGoodCandidates near the bottom:
- any wikipedian (those with 1+ non-reverted edits to mainspace) can bangvote for as many of the names on LongList as they wish, similar to how multi-seat arbcom elections work
- because of the specialized nature of LongList, and the purpose/goals thereof, I propose using a custom voting-system
- there will be many candidates on LongList, presumably, and if we only allow one single !support per wikipedian, the sort-ordering will suffer from the spoiler effect / dark horse / split vote. Bad!
- I suggest we use a variation on approval voting, modelled somewhat similarly to the way that multi-seat multi-candidate arbcom elections work
- As with most bangvoting systems, there are three basic ways each wikipedian can bangvote for a candidate: approve/yea, silent/abstain, and NoWay/nay.
- Since there are likely to be tens or hundreds of candidates on LongList, wikipedians are encouraged (but not WP:REQUIRED) to bangvote top-down, using a *sorted* version of LongList
- For each candidate-nominee, the bangvoter can either mark the name as approve, if they think the person would make a good ExecDir, or stay silent (aka abstain) about that particular candidate
- After marking approve, the bangvoter may optionally leave their argument in favor of this candidate, or their approve-rationale: maximum of 99 rendered character-glyphs! Links to detailed arguments on user-talkpages are also fine
- Similarly, if the candidate is not one the bangvoter wished to mark as approved, they are free to leave one (1) max-99-char
Comment: about the candidate, subject to WP:BLPTALK and WP:NICE of course - Therefore, bangvoters can have as many approve-bangvotes as they wish: popular candidates will get plenty of approve-bangvotes, unpopular ones will get fewer, and the ever-changing-candidate-count won't screw anything up
- However, it is necessary to also permit bangvoters to have the NoWay-bangvote at their disposal. This is a bit tricky.
- First of all, unlimited-NoWay-voting is a bad idea: it will lead to tactical voting, where many perfectly reasonable candidates get "NoWay" bangvotes (tearing down the competition to build up one's real preference).
- This is no theoretical worry: cf mudslinging during Clinton vs Obama 2008, mudslinging during Bush versus McCain 2000... per WP:BLPTALK and WP:NICE we best forestall any mudslinging, by using a voting-system which tends to limit it.
- Therefore, my proposal is that we permit each wikipedian (no WP:PUPPETs of course!) to have as many honest-approve-bangvotes as they wish, but exactly one and only one tactical-NoWay-bangvote.
- Because there is only one NoWay-bangvote, the 'correct' way to get maximum use out of it, is to give one's single NoWay-bangvote to the highest-listed candidate of which one does not approve.
- Alternatively, rather than voting against the highest-listed-unapproved-candidate, one can give their NoWay-bangvote to the truly worst candidate on the list... but a candidate that bad, is probably already at the bottom, so this use of the NowWay-bangvote will not effect the sorting-outcome (and is thus not recommended).
- That is basically it. Every bangvoter gets as many approve-bangvotes as they wish to make (max one per candidate :-) plus as many comments as they wish to make (max one per candidate), plus one single tactical NoWay-bangvote.
- As a frill, it makes sense to me that we should allow each bangvoter one single approve-as-honest-first-choice. It will not change the sort-ordering, or the approve-tallies, but it will give some indication of who their true favorite was, amongst all their approve-bangvotes.
- As a frill, it might make sense to allow each bangvoter one single approve-honestly-as-likely-winner. Again, this will change nothing... but gives us some indication of a candidate they approve-of, whom they think *others* will also approve-of. This frill can be "doubled up" with the honest-first-choice frill, if the bangvoter believes their honest-first-choice is simultaneously the likely-winner.
- No other frills, though; this dern thing is already complex enough. No multiple-first-choice-ties, no second-and-third-choices, no first-choice-except, no conditional-approve. If you've used up your single NoWay, but you also want to mark Hitler as being a bad person for the ExecDir position, you can simply Comment: "no way too genocidal to be the execdir", using unbolded plaintext rather than waste your one tactical-NoWay-bangvote.
The end. There are some clerk-duties left unspecified here as yet, and some rules about how to enforce the rules (if a bangvoter marks more than one NoWay then some clerk eliminates all but the top-sorted-NoWay and leaves a user-talkpage note for the bangvoter to that effect). But fundamentally, I expect that this scheme will result in a very well-tuned sort-ordering of LongList, with ideal candidates near the top, and less-ideal ones somewhere below the halfway-point.
This is roughly what I would post over at WP:VPI, but I've never done that before, so I'm not sure if 1) that's the best place for it, and 2) this is the best format for that place. Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia folks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Reposted. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
thoughts on rough draft#2 implementation-proposal
analysis of this unofficial-ExecDir-selection-scheme
|
|---|
|
The custom voting-system explained here was specifically designed so that *only* the top of the list is relatively-well-sorted... really bad candidates are as likely to be near the halfway point (maybe even above average!) as they are to be sorted at the bottom. Therefore, there will not be much risk of BLPTALK violations against off-wiki people, or of hurt feelings against on-wiki people. The competition is designed to center entirely around which of the top N candidates is best: pretty much a wikiLove-fest, in other words. Will the scheme give us a decent shortlist for selecting the WMF dictator-for-life plus Lord of VisualEditor and Duke of WP:FLOW in charge of wisely spending USD$40M/yr? Not sure, that depends on what sort of participants we draw with the VPI and the RfC... we might end up with Mickey Mouse or even Vermin Supreme at the top of the list (who guarantees a free WP:PONY to every wikipedian if they are elected ExecDir). If we *do* manage to collaboratively create a half-decent top-ten-candidates-for-ExecDir, does that mean that the official WMF search-committee will pay any attention whatsoever? Again, not sure... it depends. Too many factors. But as I've mentioned before, and will hammer home again, even if the WMF had *already* hired a new ExecDir, I'd still want to try out this scheme, because we need to start opening up the WMF elections, reforming RfA bangvoting, and similar such things. The best way to test out a complex system, is to deploy it in the real world, and work out the bugs. And if the WMF hires some not-on-LongList person at the end of the day, we can *still* add that person to the list retroactively, and hold a couple more rounds of bangvoting, to see where that person would have fallen, if they were added to LongList. Influencing this particular ExecDir-selection-process would be nice, but it would be the gravy, not the meat. I haven't mentioned much about the layout and format of LongList itself. There are actually *multiple* forms of LongList... depending on what one is doing. Above, I speak mostly of LongList as a metaphor, meaning, the-current-list-of-all-candidates-and-all-bangvotes-with-best-candidates-up-near-the-top-in-sorted-arbcom-election-style-ordering. But there are actually a few variants on LongList we might want to consider, when setting things up.
|
| score | shortname | candidate | tactical-NoWays | honest-approves (all) | honest-first-choice (only) | honestly-as-likely-winner (only) | tally date |
| 90% | Wales1 | Jimbo Wales | 1* | 9 | 1 | 1 | 2014-01-12 00:00 |
| 89% | 28bytes | 28bytes | 1* | 8 | 0 | 0 | 2014-01-12 00:00 |
| 88% | Torvalds | Linus Torvalds | 1* | 7 | 1 | 0 | 2014-01-12 00:00 |
| 86% | Gates | Bill Gates | 1* | 6 | 0 | 0 | 2014-01-12 00:00 |
| 83% | Khodorkovsky | Mikhail Khodorkovsky | 1* | 5 | 0 | 0 | 2014-01-12 00:00 |
| 80% | Winfrey | Oprah Winfrey | 1* | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2014-01-12 00:00 |
| 75% | Clinton1 | Hillary Clinton | 1* | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2014-01-12 00:00 |
| 67% | Romney | Mitt Romney | 1* | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2014-01-12 00:00 |
| 50% | Gore | Al Gore | 1* | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2014-01-12 00:00 |
- Note that, to keep somebody with one approve... their own... and zero NoWays from leaping to the top of LongList, we give *every* candidate one single phantom-NoWay vote. This also prevents division-by-zero-errors (zero approves divided by the sum of zero approves plus zero noWays plus one phantomNoWay).
advanced topics: weighted tallies, non-enWiki tallies, lions, tigers, and bears, oh my
|
|---|
|
Finally, there is a third variation, the weighted-arbcom-style-shortlist. In *this* version, instead of simply counting noses as we do in the arbcom-style-shortlist, the tallies in the weighted-arbcom-style-shortlist are calculated by first multiplying each bangvote by the enWiki-mainspace-editcountitis-score of the bangvoter. So, if you have eleven approve-bangvotes by 11 wikipedians who each have 1 edit to enWiki-mainspace, and two single NoWay-bangvotes by 2 wikipedian each with 22 enWiki-mainspace edits, then the weighted-score for this candidate would be (11*1 / (11*1 + 2*22 + 1phantom)) == 20% which is going to be near the bottom. Flipping the situation around, if the two bangvoters with 22 edits vote approve whilst the eleven bangvoters with 1 edit all vote NoWay then we have (2*22 / (2*22 + 11*1 + 1phantom)) == 79% which is *still* not going to be very competitive. Because editcountitis is a disease we don't want to encourage, and because weighting-by-editcountitis is dramatically more susceptible to nefarious tactical voting schemes involving nigh-undetectable-collusion, this weighted-arbcom-style-shortlist will always be *super-unofficial* methinks. Speaking of enWiki-mainspace... at first methinks this will purely be an enWiki operation. If we manage to generate enough interest here, and bullet-proof the voting-system during the first couple of weeks, then the system can be exported to other wikis, who can perform their own voting, with the own local tallies. At the end of the whole deal, all the wiki-tables can be collected together, and we can get a super-total. But for the moment, I'm concentrating on getting this up and running on at least *one* wiki before I worry about non-enWiki bangvoters. :-) That said, maybe instead of trying to set up an RfC here on enWiki *and* housing LongList here on enWiki, maybe we can have the RfC here on enWiki, but house LongList over on meta.wikipedia.org for centrality? That way, non-enWiki bangvoters would not need to set up their own voting-system. I'm not sure if meta would have us, though. Hmmmm. I'll ping PiRSquared17 who is used to wading through my wall-o-texts. <griiiinnnn> Maybe they have an opinion on this particular facet of the scheme, or on the whole shebang? |
"...why these qualified humans would have to be the subject of a BLP?" This is just a suggestion, to help pre-emptively weed out some of the chaff. But I think it may help focus discussion on *likely* ExecDir candidates, not just "nice people" who are not actually qualified to operate the $30m/yr 200-employee WMF, on a day-to-day basis. My further reasoning is, that the ExecDir is the figurehead of the WMF specifically, in much the way that Jimbo is the overall figurehead of TheMovement™ generally. The new ExecDir doesn't *have* to already be wikiNotable, let alone famous, but it will absolutely help if they are, right? Part of the ExecDir's job is to boost editor-count, and being famous already will definitely help. It is the difference between having Linus Torvalds, or Bill Gates, or Oprah Winfrey, or Hillary Clinton, or Mitt Romney, as the new ExecDir... versus some WP:Randy from Boise who is equally qualified perhaps, besides not already being famous. But I'd like to get somebody who is already famous, *if* they are famous for the right reasons, and in the right way. Rumour has it Al Gore invented the internet, but is prolly not a good choice for the new ExecDir. We don't want to get somebody infamous like Charles Manson as our new ExecDir. Nor do we want somebody like Steve Ballmer. We want somebody that shares the wikipedian values. For instance, what about Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky; they're between gigs right now, do you think they'd make a good ExecDir? I can guarantee the search-cmte never interviewed them. And what *about* Linus, if they would be willing to take the job? Approve, or nay? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Reposted. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Mentoring
Kvenland has no formal army... only sleeper cells, armed with feathers of mass destruction.
Checking AN/I this morning, I note that the section about Bladesmulti was unarchived to be properly closed, and that the closing statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves makes strong recommendations. Apologies if this has already been brought to your attention above. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- I *like* attention from kvenish folks, drop in anytime. :-) Thanks, and the commentary by Drmies is also helpful, I will pass those along too. How about you, is young Laurie going swimmingly, and your other empire of articles? I am working on my reply to your instructions (to Hafspajen) about caballah, but I warn you, I shall be inserting some comment-splitting! :-) &ndsp; TFIW per aspera. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- My 5/5 edits are over for today. Actually it was hard to decide, but where I can add the following, on Max Muller?
- "By 29th January 2014, Muller's German translation of Rig Veda, dating back to 1856 can be discovered from Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.-ref-" Bladesmulti (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Let's work on the grammar here a bit, first. #1. Can you give me the cite, so I can see what it says? #2. This is what I think you mean, am I correct?
- "On January 29th 2014, Muller's translation of the Rig Veda into German, published in 1856, was acquired by the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.[ref]"
- However, you could also have meant this:
- "As of 2014, Muller's German translation of Rig Veda, the latter of which was written in 1856, was discovered buried in the mud outside the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute."
- Which is wrong. Because the Rig Veda is much older. And the manuscript from 1856, the translation by Muller, was not discovered at BORI, it is housed at BORI now, correct? So being careful with the grammar is important, to keep from confusing the readership. Hope this helps, feel free to ask me about other questions, and I can help you insert them beyond the 5-per-day limit.
- #3 Once we have the grammar worked out, the next question is where to put the sentence. Into the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute article? Maybe... but they have 29000 manuscripts, according to wikipedia, and only two or three are specifically mentioned. "The most prized collections include a paper manuscript of the Cikitsāsārasangraha dated 1320 and a palmleaf manuscript of the Upamitibhavaprapañcakathā dated 906." Is the Muller translation an especially-prized possession? Or would it be WP:UNDUE to put the sentence in the BORI article?
- #4 Maybe we can put the sentence into the article about Muller, since the translation was his work. There is a prose-section called "3.1 Sanskrit studies" which covers this portion of Muller's life; there is also the section at the bottom called "9 Publications" which has the list of books. But I do not see 1856 in section 9, or in section 3.1 either. Is the copy at BORI the final manuscript, or a rough draft, or something else? Maybe they have some of the manuscripts that Muller worked from, rather than the manuscripts that Muller wrote himself? The source should say. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- This is the source.[166] They are like treasure. Thats why I thought of asking you first. Since he is relevant, a section like "In 21st century" will work? or "Modern times". Whatever you suggest. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks, I have read the source. That was question number one. What about question #2, though? Please write me a new sentence here, to summarize what the source says. Make the new sentence say what you think should be in wikipedia. It is okay if it is not perfect. We can fix that. But we need to keep trying, until it is easy for you. Well... maybe not easy. Writing clear sentences is hard! Even for people with a lot of practice. But it will get easier, the more you practice. So, let us begin to practice now. Write me another sentence, please. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- As usual, it has to be explained that Max Muller had translated to German, and anyone can get access to original copies. Something like that. If I could collect 4-5 related events, that occurred in 21st century, about Max Muller. A separate section could be created. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- I will write here, tomorrow. Remember, I will be back with 4-5 more events. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- This is the source.[166] They are like treasure. Thats why I thought of asking you first. Since he is relevant, a section like "In 21st century" will work? or "Modern times". Whatever you suggest. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Let's work on the grammar here a bit, first. #1. Can you give me the cite, so I can see what it says? #2. This is what I think you mean, am I correct?
Max Müller? One of my favorite weirdoes ... Yngvadottir (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- His bibliography is not complete. He first published in 1844, but we only start mentioning 1859. What's up with that? I will post my collected list in a bit. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
mainspace.
- A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature So Far As It Illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans (1859), 1859
- Lectures on the Science of Language (1864, 2 vols.), Fifth Edition, Revised 1866. Lectures on the Science of Language were translated into Russian in 1866 and published at the first Russian scientific linguistic magazine "Filologicheskie Zapiski". (( online at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/32856 ))
- Chips from a German Workshop (1867–75, 5 vols.). (( online at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/24686 ((skip vol#2)) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26572 http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30192 http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27810 ))
- Introduction to the Science of Religion (1873)
- Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as Illustrated by the Religions of India (1878) [2]
- India, What can it Teach Us? (1883) [3] (( online at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20847 plus also online at HathiTrust which has five versions from 1882 (New York, John W. Lovell co. 1882) thru 1919 ))
- Biographical Essays (1884)
- Upanishads. Wordsworth Editions. 2001 (first 1884). ISBN 9781840221022.
- The German Classics from the Fourth to the Nineteenth Century (1886, 2 vols.) [4]
- The Science of Thought (1887, 2 vols.)
- Studies in Buddhism (1888) [5] [6]
Not done (didn't show up in my lists below... alternative title perhaps?) Co-author; for 1888, search the other authors? - Six Systems of Hindu Philosophy (1899)
- Gifford Lectures of 1888–92 (Collected Works, vols. 1–4). Natural Religion (1889), Vol. 1, Vol. 2
- Gifford Lectures of 1888–92 (Collected Works, vols. 1–4). Physical Religion (1891), [7] ((online at HathiTrust "delivered before the university of Glasgow in 1890 / by F. Max Müller. (London ; New York : Longmans, Green, 1891)" ))
- Gifford Lectures of 1888–92 (Collected Works, vols. 1–4). Anthropological Religion (1892), [8]
- Gifford Lectures of 1888–92 (Collected Works, vols. 1–4). Theosophy, or Psychological Religion (1893), [9]
- Auld Lang Syne (1898, 2 vols.), a memoir
- My Autobiography: A Fragment (1901) [10] (( online at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30269 ))
- The Life and Letters of the Right Honourable Friedrich Max Müller (1902, 2. (*maybe* the same as 1898-1900 collected works?) Worldcat
missing.
- Dhammapada, a Collection of Verses; Being One of the Canonical Books of the Buddhists (English) (as Translator) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2017
- Memories: A Story of German Love (English) (as Author) (( this title is from the USA which enjoyed a copyright-violating translation of ‘Deutsche Liebe’ )) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14521
- Sacred Books of the East (English) (as Translator) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/12894
- The Roman and the Teuton A Series of Lectures delivered before the University of Cambridge (English) (as Editor) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3821
- The Silesian Horseherd - Questions of the Hour (English) (as Author) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/24315
- http://books.google.com/books/about/Comparative_Mythology.html
- Vedic Hymns (2 volumes, 1896-1897), trans. by F. Max Müller and Hermann Oldenberg ((online at http://sacred-texts.com))
"based on Max Müller's Leipzig Lecture-book (Collegienbuch); on Oxford University Notices from 1850 onwards; on ‘Auld Lang Syne,’ vol. i.; on ‘My Autobiography;’ on bibliographical notes furnished by Messrs. Longmans, Green, & Co.; on details supplied by Mrs. Max Miiller; and largely on personal knowledge (1876-1900)."[167]
India/Sanskrit
- 1844 ‘Hitopadeśa,’ translated into German, Leipzig, ; Sanskrit.
- 1847 ‘Meghadūta,’ translated into German, Königsberg, . Sanskrit.
- 1849-1873 ‘Rigveda,’ with Sāyaṇa's ‘Commentary,’ full, 6 vols. London, ; Sanskrit.
- 1856-1869 ‘Rigveda-Prātiśākhya,’ text, with German translation, Leipzig, . Sanskrit.
- 1859 ‘A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, as far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans,’ London, ; Sanskrit.
mainspaced - 1860 ‘A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, as far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans,’ 2nd edit. . Sanskrit.
Partly done in mainspace - 1864-1865 ‘Hitopadeśa,’ text, with interlinear translation, 2 parts, London, . Sanskrit.
- 1866 ‘A Sanskrit Grammar,’ London, ; Sanskrit.
- 1869 ‘Rig Veda Saṇhitā, the Sacred Hymns of the Brahmans translated and explained’ (twelve hymns to the Maruts), London, Trübner, ; Sanskrit.
- 1870 ‘A Sanskrit Grammar,’ 2nd edit. ; Sanskrit.
- 1870 ‘The Dhammapada,’ translated from Pali, in Rogers's Burmese translation, London, ; Pali_Language.
- 1873 ‘Rigveda,’ with Sāyaṇa's ‘Commentary,’ text only, 2 vols. ; Sanskrit.
- 1877 ‘Rigveda,’ with Sāyaṇa's ‘Commentary,’ text only, 2nd edit. . Sanskrit.
- 1879 ‘The Upanishads,’ pt. i., ‘Sacred Books of the East,’ vol. i. , Sanskrit. Partly done in mainspace (claims 1884)
- 1881 ‘Vajrachhedikā’ (‘Anecdota Oxoniensia,’ Aryan Series, pt. i.), ; Sanskrit.
- 1883 ‘India, what can it teach us?’ London, ; Sanskrit. mainspaced'
- 1883 ‘Sukhāvatīvyūha,’ in collaboration with Nanjio, ib. ; Sanskrit.
- 1884 ‘Prajñā-pāramitā-hṛdaya-sūtra,’ in collaboration with Nanjio, ib. ; Sanskrit.
- 1885 ‘Dharmasamgraha,’ prepared by K. Kasawara, and edited by Max Müller and H. Wenzel, ib. . Sanskrit.
- 1886 ‘A Sanskrit Grammar,’ new and abridged edition by A. A. Macdonell, . Sanskrit.
- 1890-1892 ‘Rigveda,’ with Sāyaṇa's ‘Commentary,’ full, 2nd edit. 4 vols. London, ; Sanskrit.
- 1891 ‘Vedic Hymns,’ in ‘Sacred Books of the East,’ vol. xxxii. the same as the 1869 Hymns plus thirty-six additional hymns, . Sanskrit.
- 1892 ‘India, what can it teach us?’ new edit. ; Sanskrit. Partly done in mainspace
- 1894 ‘The Upanishads,’ pt. ii. vol. xv. ‘The Larger and Smaller Prajñā-pāramitā-hṛdaya-Sūtra,’ ib. vol. xlix. . Sanskrit. Partly done in mainspace (claims 1884)
- 1894 ‘Three Lectures on the Vedanta Philosophy,’ London, . Philosophy.
- 1895 ‘India, what can it teach us?’ reprinted ; Sanskrit. Partly done in mainspace
- 1896 Introduction to Takakusu's Translation of I-tsing, Oxford, . Sanskrit.
- 1898 ‘The Dhammapada,’ translated from Pali, reprinted in the ‘Sacred Books of the East,’ vol. x.; 2nd edit. . Pali_Language.
- 1898 ‘Rāmakṛṣṇa, his Life and Sayings,’ London, 1898; twice reprinted, 1899; in collected edition, 1900. Biographical.
- 1899 ‘India, what can it teach us?’ in collected edition, . Sanskrit. Partly done in mainspace
- 1899 ‘The Six Systems of Indian Philosophy,’ London, . Philosophy. mainspaced (albeit it says "hindu" rather than "indian" at the moment... alt title? or WP:PUSH maybe?)
Religion/Philosophy
- 1856 ‘Essay on Comparative Mythology,’ part i. of Oxford Essays, . Mythology
- 1873 ‘Introduction to the Science of Religion,’ London, ; Science of Religion. mainspaced
- 1873 ‘On Missions’ (lecture delivered in Westminster Abbey), London, . Science of Religion.
- 1878 ‘The Origin and Growth of Religion, as illustrated by the Religions of India,’ London, ; Science of Religion. mainspaced
- 1878 ‘The Origin and Growth of Religion, as illustrated by the Religions of India,’ 2nd edit. ; Science of Religion. Partly done in mainspace
- 1881 ‘Kant's Critique of Pure Reason,' translated, London, ; Philosophy.
- 1882 ‘The Origin and Growth of Religion, as illustrated by the Religions of India,’ new edit. , Science of Religion. Partly done in mainspace
- 1882 ‘Introduction to the Science of Religion,’ new edit. ; Science of Religion. Partly done in mainspace
- 1889 ‘Natural Religion,’ London, ; Science of Religion. mainspaced
- 1891 ‘Physical Religion,’ London, ; Science of Religion. mainspaced
- 1891 ‘The Origin and Growth of Religion, as illustrated by the Religions of India,’ ; Science of Religion. Partly done in mainspace
- 1892 ‘Natural Religion,’ 2nd edit. . Science of Religion. Partly done in mainspace
- 1892 ‘Anthropological Religion,’ London, ; Science of Religion. mainspaced
- 1893 ‘Theosophy, or Psychological Religion,’ London, ; Science of Religion. mainspaced
- 1895 ‘Theosophy, or Psychological Religion,’ new edit. ; Science of Religion. Partly done in mainspace
- 1896 ‘Kant's Critique of Pure Reason,' new edit. . Philosophy.
- 1897 ‘Contributions to the Science of Mythology,’ 2 vols. London, . Mythology
- 1898 ‘Physical Religion,’ new edit. . Science of Religion. Partly done in mainspace
- 1898 ‘Anthropological Religion,’ new issue, . Science of Religion. Partly done in mainspace
- 1898 ‘The Origin and Growth of Religion, as illustrated by the Religions of India,’ re-issue, . Science of Religion. Partly done in mainspace
- 1899 ‘Theosophy, or Psychological Religion,’ new impression, . Science of Religion. Partly done in mainspace
- 1899 ‘Introduction to the Science of Religion,’ reissue, . Science of Religion. Partly done in mainspace
- 1900 ‘Essays on Mythology and Folklore’ (‘Chips,’ vol. iv.); new impression, . Mythology
(Comparative)Linguistics
- 1861 ‘The Science of Language,’ vol 1/2. London, ; LinguisticsGenerally. Partly done in mainspace
- 1863 ‘The Science of Language,’ vol 2/2. London, ; LinguisticsGenerally. Partly done in mainspace
- 1868 ‘On the Stratification of Language’ (Rede Lecture), London, . LinguisticsGenerally.
- 1872 ‘On the Results of the Science of Language’ (inaugural lecture in German), Strasburg, . LinguisticsGenerally.
- 1885 ‘The Science of Language,’ 14th edit. ; LinguisticsGenerally. Partly done in mainspace
- 1887 ‘The Science of Thought,’ London, . LinguisticsGenerally. mainspaced (claims 2 vols currently?)
- 1888 ‘Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryas,’ London, ; LinguisticsGenerally.
- 1890 ‘The Science of Language,’ new edit. ; LinguisticsGenerally. Partly done in mainspace
- 1898 ‘Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryas,’ new edit. . LinguisticsGenerally.
- 1899 ‘Essays on Language and Literature’ (‘Chips,’ vol. iii.); last edit. . LinguisticsGenerally.
- 1899 ‘The Science of Language,’ last edition, . LinguisticsGenerally. Partly done in mainspace
German/Other
- 1857 ‘Deutsche Liebe,’ 1st edit. Leipzig, ; GermanLanguage.
- 1858 ‘The German Classics from the Fourth to the Nineteenth Century,’ London, ; GermanLanguage. Partly done in mainspace
- 1867-1875 ‘Chips from a German Workshop,’ 4 vol., mainspaced
- 1868 ‘Wilhelm Müller's Poems,’ edited with introduction and notes, Leipzig, . GermanLanguage.
- 1873 ‘Deutsche Liebe,’ English transl. (by Mrs. Max Müller) London, ; GermanLanguage.
- 18xx ‘Deutsche Liebe,’ a pirated translation, under the title of ‘Memories,’ has had an enormous sale in America; GermanLanguage.
- 1873 ‘Deutsche Liebe,’ French transl. ; GermanLanguage.
- 1875 ‘Schiller's Correspondence with Duke Friedrich Christian of Schleswig Holstein,’ edited with introduction and notes, Leipzig, ; GermanLanguage.
- 1880 ‘Chips from a German Workshop,’ new edit. Partly done in mainspace
- 1884 ‘Biographical Essays’ (‘Chips,’ vol. ii.), London, ; . Self mainspaced (albeit not yet called chip#2)
- 1885 ‘Scherer's History of German Literature,’ translated by Mrs. Conybeare and edited by F. Max Müller, Oxford, ; GermanLanguage.
- 1886 ‘The German Classics from the Fourth to the Nineteenth Century,’ new and enlarged edit. 2 vols. London, . GermanLanguage. mainspaced
- 1891 ‘Scherer's History of German Literature,’ new edit. . GermanLanguage.
- 1898 ‘Deutsche Liebe,’ English transl. 4th edit. . GermanLanguage.
- 1898 ‘Deutsche Liebe,’ 13th edit. (altogether 18,000 copies); GermanLanguage.
- 1898 ‘Biographical Essays’ (‘Chips,’ vol. ii.), new impression, . Self Partly done in mainspace (albeit not yet called chip#2)
- 1898 ‘Auld Lang Syne,’ vol. i. London, (3 editions), vol. ii., mainspaced
- 1898-1900, collected works, 15 vol. Self *maybe* the same as 1902 Life&Letters?
- 1899 ‘My Indian Friends,’ London, ; ((not sure?))
- 1900 ‘Deutsche Liebe,’ a new French transl. ; GermanLanguage.
- 1901 ‘My Autobiography. A Fragment,’ London, . Self mainspaced
HTH. Bladesmulti and I will prolly be expanding Max's article, slowly but surely. Nobody said grammar-lessons cannot improve wikipedia, as a byproduct. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
work to do
- That's great. Anyways my 5/5 completed somewhat quicker than normally they used to be. Can you do me a favor? Revert[168] check by history, that is removal of sourced content. The page was watched a lot, but during august - sept. No more really. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- You need to worry about grammar first. Content-disputes in mainspace are secondary. These are some questions you have not answered yet:
Bladesmulti: answer these questions, please.
- User_talk:Bladesmulti/Grammar#practice_re-writing
- User_talk:Bladesmulti/Grammar#grammar_practice_session_4
- User_talk:Bladesmulti/Mentorship#lesson_three.2C_WP:RS_and_WP:N
- User_talk:Bladesmulti/Mentorship#lesson_four.2C_WP:SOCKPUPPET_and_WP:MEATPUPPET_and_WP:CANVASSING
- User_talk:Bladesmulti/Mentorship#lesson_five.2C_WP:NPOV_and_WP:CONTROVERSY
- User_talk:Bladesmulti/Mentorship#Edit.232_Hindu_art
- User_talk:Bladesmulti/Mentorship#Edit.231_as_of_02:46.2C_30_Jan_Talk:Criticism_of_Jainism
- User_talk:Bladesmulti/Mentorship#old_dispute.2C_which_is_now_over.2C_but_we_can_still_learn_from
Actually, you did put a reply for the last one. You said: "I was in hurry, had to dinner. So didn't explained best way. But didn't got back either then. But thanks." That was six days ago. :-) You are not in a hurry anymore. You must answer the questions. You must practice re-writing sentences. Practice practice practice. That is how the co-mentors can know you understand. We are teaching you to explain things clearly. You must practice, if you want to learn.
It is okay if it is not the best way. But sentences that you write have to be clear. These 8 example are not clear yet. You must re-write any sentence which is unclear, until the sentence is clear. Start rewriting these 8 examples above. You can make as many edits to User_talk:Bladesmulti as you want. Then, later, maybe we can talk about Growth of religion. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, re-writing content is really helpful, and taking idea from other pages is also helpful. I have replied to each of them, except one. Recently, got involved with this AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduism and Judaism (2nd nomination), I disregard it, because the notability of the subject is bigger issue. Anyways, if you compare version before the AFD[169] and hardly 24 - 28 hours later[170], you see some difference? If Tryptofish could pass their comment about this issue, it will be helpful. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- We can worry about the AfD later. I have replied to your replies, on the eight items. Now you please reply again on each of them. Focus on re-writing. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, re-writing content is really helpful, and taking idea from other pages is also helpful. I have replied to each of them, except one. Recently, got involved with this AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduism and Judaism (2nd nomination), I disregard it, because the notability of the subject is bigger issue. Anyways, if you compare version before the AFD[169] and hardly 24 - 28 hours later[170], you see some difference? If Tryptofish could pass their comment about this issue, it will be helpful. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Judaism
- I'm making a comment here, because Bladesmulti pinged me. I've looked specifically at the changes to the page between the two permalinks provided by Bladesmulti. I'm not expressing any opinion about page notability, nor am I knowledgeable about the source material – just giving my opinion about the quality of the edits. I think that there are extensive and serious flaws with the English grammar, that make it difficult to understand much of the writing. I know that grammar etc. is part of the mentorship program, and I strongly urge Bladesmulti to work hard on that. Otherwise, though, I was pleased with the edits. Although there were potential pitfalls over POV, it seems to me that the edits were even-handed. And they added interesting material from what seem to me to be reliable sources, in a way that helped to expand the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Here is the overall diff.[171] Lots of work there, Bladesmulti deserves our thanks. Thanks, Bladesmulti! :-) But are there problems, too, along with the work? Yes. How do we fix them? There are some grammar mistakes, but those can be fixed. Maybe we can teach grammar to Bladesmulti, or if not, maybe we can find somebody for Bladesmulti to work with, as a team. But the main thing that is worrying to me, is an edit like this.[172] What was changed here? Several things.
- Veda and Torah: Transcending the Textuality of Scripture(1996) by Barbara A. Holdrege. (( added to Further Reading, seems like a good one, no question ))
- The comparison between Hinduism and Judaism, was influential mostly during the Enlightenment, in arguing the deistic worldview.(ref)Hananya Goodman. Between Jerusalem and Benares: Comparative Studies in Judaism and Hinduism. Suny Press. p. 3. ISBN 9780791417157.(/ref)
- Hananya Goodman places Hinduism and Judaism as that they have played an important role in European discussion of idolatry, spirituality, primitive, theories of race, language, mythologies, etc.(ref)Kathryn McClymond. Beyond Sacred Violence: A Comparative Study of Sacrifice. JHU Press. p. 33. ISBN 9780801896293.(/ref) ((this sentence is talking about Goodman's view, but cites McClymond's book... was McClymond quoting Goodman's view? ))
- By some scholars both religions were regarded to be ethnic, and not accepting converts. However there followers are found across the world.(ref)Emma Tomalin. Religions and Development. Routledge. p. 109.(/ref) (( does Tomalin say that Judaism is regarded by some scholars as ethnic and anti-convert? does Tomalin say that Hinduism is regarded by some scholars as ethnic and anti-convert? most importantly, does the source go on to say, that there are followers of each religion around the world, and therefore according to the source those unnamed scholars are refuted? There is no URL for Tomalin, nor a |quote= in the cite, so it is hard to say without visiting a library. ))
- Both religions shares some common elements in the regards of complicated system laws, purity codes, dietary restrictions, for defining their communities.(ref)Sushil Mittal, Gene Thursby. Religions of South Asia: An Introduction. Routledge. p. 181. ISBN 9781134593224.(/ref)
- In Judaism, God is transcendent, in Hinduism, God is both immanent and transcendent. Both religions are not evangelical.(ref)Sitansu S. Chakravarti (1991). Hinduism, a Way of Life. p. 84. ISBN 9788120808997.(/ref) (( both sentences are grammatically decent... first could have used a semicolon, second a dash, but not big deal. ))
- In Judaism, god is usually regarded as Yahweh. While in Hinduism, Narayana is regarded to be supreme god.(ref)Ishar Singh. The Philosophy of Guru Nanak, Volume 1. Atlantic. p. 13.(/ref) (( first sentence seems pretty uncontroversial... but the follow-on sentence implies there is a connection. Is such a connection mentioned, in the source provided? Is saying flat-out that Narayana is the supreme god of the Hindus, something that wikipedia's voice should say, without caveats? ))
- The online source, at the cited page, is this URL.[173] This portion of the book briefly compares Hinduism to Judaism/Christianity/Islam/Buddhism. Having myself read and understood WP:COPYVIO, WP:NFCCEG, and WP:FAQ/Copyright#What_is_fair_use.3F, it is perfectly safe and legal for me to give a blockquoted portion of page 84 from the book Hinduism: a Way of Life by Sitansu S. Chakravarti, for the educational purpose of teaching Bladesmulti about pillar three.
Hinduism and Judaism are the two most ancient religions of the world today. Hinduism is monotheistic like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The Hindu school of Advaita Vedanta is even monistic in so far as it identifies the creator, the creation and the individual subjects as one in their inner essence.
In Judaism, Christianity and Islam, God is transcendent. In Judaism and Islam, God never incarnates Himself. In Hinduism, God is both immanent and transcendent. He or She is manifest in forms and is without forms. In fact, God without forms is referred to in Hinduism as neither 'He', nor 'She', but as 'It'. God is believed to have divine incarnation, as in the Christian tradition, whereas in teh Hindu faith there are more divine incarnations than one. According to the traditional interpretation of Hinduism, the latest incarnation is yet to come, like the messiah of Judaism, though He will come for the benefit of the whole of humanity irrespective of difference in faiths. Hinduism and Judaism are not evangelical religions.
Several times in history, Hinduism has given shelter to people of other faiths when they were inconvenienced with denial of religious freedom in their own country. In the National Geographic of May 1988 (p607) there is an allusion to copper plate inscriptions dating to the eighth century A.D. that offered protection to the Jewish people in Kerala by the local Hindu ruler. The community has ever since followed its faith without any hindrance from the Hindus.
Paralleling the traditions of Judaism and Islam, pork is generally forbidden in Hinduism. Beef is absolutely forbidden in the religion. Many Hindus are traditionally vegetarians, as are a good number of Buddhists. The soul is accepted as surviving the death of the body, as is the case for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Hinduism shares the concept of rebirth with Buddhism so long as ignorance distances us from realization of our true nature, which is bliss.
- Emphasis added. So the basic problem is, two things.
- # First, it is important for Bladesmulti to practice re-writing with improvements, so that Bladesmulti can re-write sentences from the sources. This is essential to wikipedia's third pillar.
- # Second, it is important for Bladesmulti to practice understanding the language of the sources, so that Bladesmulti can summarize what the sources say. This is also going to be helpful when talking to other wikipedians, especially about policy (not to mention sources!). Understanding each other is key to pillar four. Understanding sources is key to pillar one and pillar two and pillar three.
- We will get there, but it will take some hard work. Luckily, Bladesmulti works hard. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Emphasis added. So the basic problem is, two things.
Tryptofish. It is true, that some of them are hard to understand for readers. I wrote them in hurry, plus, I don't know any better, at this moment. I will probably ask a Copy editor for some assistance, once the AFD is over. And consider, how they edited. Thanks 74, for pointing out weasel words, Indeed I should provide the correct summary in the quote. It is not new thing to me, but clearer than ever now.
I could have added more, regarding the scriptures, I have quotes by David Flusser, Voltaire, at least Flusser can be added, right? But I am not sure that there would be possibility of neutrality. Unless there was some known rejection or refutation, either way it seems impossible. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Test of Aunty Flo at WikiProject Breakfast
My aunt is sitting in her car, driving. My aunt doesn't read, she is driving. My aunt want to buy an apple and a plum. My aunt is happy.
-
- Hafspajen, you have WP:GOOG just like the rest of us. Try http://duckduckgo.com and type girl and car. It was that one with the beautiful actress. Good movie. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- WHAT movie?Hafspajen (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'll never tell. :-) Oh, fine, I'll give you a hint, Mandy. It has two actresses, both with brown/auburn/browne/something hair. Or maybe a bit reddish. The car was pretty fast, too. Don't you like riddles with your War On Breakfast? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Ironically enough. See AN/I: the alarming breakage has apparently started. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- The breakfast wars have begun. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Flow_needs_to_be_stopped_NOW.21
- (Probably Thelma and Louise), Mandy. (Mandy, that's you - soon I an going to be asked, what, Warrington, is your name Mandy now?Hafspajen (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ohhhh, so close, Mandington! :-) The correct film is Hero (1992 film). But the actress *was* the same, so you get partial credit. "...was an exchange student in Sandviken, Sweden, becoming fluent in Swedish.[5]" You see, our vast trove of popular culture tidbits *does* have some value, after all. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- So, Mandy, that is why you can speak Kvenish, but why on earth such a God forgotten place, of all places? Hafspajen (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not a native of kvenland, I'm only in the Kvenish Foreign Legion. ... but did you figure out who the other actress(esez) was(esez)? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- (Probably Thelma and Louise), Mandy. (Mandy, that's you - soon I an going to be asked, what, Warrington, is your name Mandy now?Hafspajen (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- What will you do now, when Drmies talkpage is protected against IP wandals who were wandalizing his page all night? Hafspajen (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Wow that rotating globe is cool. :-) I'm working on your reply, it's in another tab. Don't rush the breakfast-chef, you'll spoil your appetite. ;-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
With regards to...
this question, WP:VPT may be the place you're looking for. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Okay thanks, Luke. WP:Village_pump_(technical)#Chronology_of_category-insertion_and_category-removal_events. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Data, for what use I dunno
The history of 2013–2014 Hamburg demonstrations is sobering. Created and worked on by multiple editors whose first language appears to be Turkish (WMF's forced replacement for Toolserver refuses to parse my requests to see global contributions), in awful, presumably machine-translated English; one of them tried to add a reference and gave up, presumably defeated by the formatting issue; one of them fixed one of the many English errors; one of them showed POV; none of them have edited anywhere else. It was moved to a better title. Two poor newbies drew it as their "new editor getting started" assignment: good effort!, not so useful, but correct; neither has ever edited again. The page was AfD'd; I rewrote it from scratch, using the list of sources at the bottom and then finding and adding German sources (and I have now added the one Turkish reference that editor tried to add) and saved it. (I left the original text commented out at the bottom; I think I will move it to the talk page though. It's pretty scary.) Hafspajen helped, and finding the German page with slightly different focus helped too. Now that the AfD has closed, I've moved it again to a title with date context. Only the creator got either welcomed or informed of the AfD. I've just started a string of user talk pages. I tell myself that at least some of these people probably edit on Turkish Wikipedia - but of course thanks to the WMF I can't check that right now. And that was a cold welcome for the two who had that page suggested to them for their first edit - and not even a welcome in response. Gack. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Landry76 added an infoboxen to Mount Vernon, based on a similar message. Ryk say his as kinda-blackly-taunting, since he got it after being blocked. The two Hamburg folks were sent as cannon-fodder into a warzone. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
SORCER - request for edit submited
Hello 74
So we got consensus so I've put my 1st request edit Talk:SORCER#paragraph_one_-_Request_Updates :-) I think it's done properly :-) If not ... I'm open for your feedback.
Pawelpacewicz (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
SORCER paragraph two
Hello 74
on SORCER paragraph two Talk:SORCER#paragraph_two You have proposed version ... and I'm interested in your opinion :) ... could You share it please :-)
Pawelpacewicz (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
.
|
Happy Valentine's Day |
| ............................................................................................................................................................................ Hafspajen (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
Happy Valentine's Day |
| ............................................................................................................................................................................ Hafspajen (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC) |
 | This user is nocturnal. |  |
xxxxXXX
.jpg)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.XX. XXXX! an ancient bit of visigoth wisdom. UUUAAAuAH. Hafspajen (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Missing you. What's up? Hafspajen (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- 'Well, now. IPs don't have a thank you for your edit button?? So I have to come over here to tell you that. Hafspajen (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- y'Welcome. :-) Please sign the petition. Wikipedia_talk:Notifications/Thanks#IP_thanking We should bully Yngvadottir into signing it, too, kvenland's finest is a real a pushover. Also, feel free to tell Redrose what my secret agent callsign is (further down on the same page). They think I'm some kind of bikini-babe from California, apparently, not a wikiAgent with a license to nil. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- 'Well, now. IPs don't have a thank you for your edit button?? So I have to come over here to tell you that. Hafspajen (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
What California? But then you probably don't have that either.Hafspajen (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Redrose gives me a new secret identity on the WT:Notifications page. Do you know what a "valley girl" is from California? They are like Mandy, kind of, only dressed in a bathing suit, and laid-back. They don't all LIVE in California, but that is where the largest concentration are from. It is sexist, like Mandy; not very nice to the females of the homo sapiens sapiens. But old memes take a long time to die. On another subject, do you know about WP:WikiFauna? Bladesmulti needs a history of the different kinds of species. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- So are you happy with your Fauna? No, don't know what a "valley girl" is from California. You show me a picture, please. How about this Doge meme? Phil hates it. Hafspajen (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Pictures are at http://images.google.com , search for Moon Zappa ... we have an article on Moon Zappa, and also Valleyspeak and Valley girl, but no pictures for any of them. Shameful! :-) You might be able to fix those problems for wikipedia, if you like. However, note that although Moon was the original holotype of the valley-girl-species, the stereotype-caricature has since diverged dramatically for the worse: "a caricature of unapologetically spoiled 'ditzes' and 'airheads' more interested in shopping, personal appearance, and social status... than in intellectual development or personal accomplishment.[2]" — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- So are you happy with your Fauna? No, don't know what a "valley girl" is from California. You show me a picture, please. How about this Doge meme? Phil hates it. Hafspajen (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
A kvenlandik finest:what is a Swede:
A pale person that has massive resistance to cold and hardship, like russians but without the poverty.
Very friendly and great to be with, even when they are hammered.
"Aren't you cold? - Nope. - Are you swedish or something? - Well, yeah. What's it to you? - Step a little closer.." Hafspajen (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
almost certainly on the internet somewhere already
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22picturesque+turns+of+phrase+are+best+avoided%22
... or perhaps not. It's somewhat surprising how few occurrences of a given phrase will usually be found in a Google search. It does mean that if the exact phrase only shows up in a Wikipedia article and one other source, then it's worth looking hard at the source to see if more of it shows up word-for-word in our article. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Lou Sander has been bizzy
Hello, 74! Since I retired from discussing whether Rupert Sheldrake is a scientist, I've been using my new buckling-spring keyboard to create encyclopedia articles. I did about 75 of them recently, mostly from a gold mine of data about U.S. Navy aircraft squadrons. If you are interested, you can see my statistics HERE. I'm shooting for 300 articles created, and it's well within reach. In a way, it could be said that I owe my recent creative energy to Morphic Resonance. Lou Sander (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Lou, nice to see you. Glad you are investing your energy in creation, that is a fine way to get those buckling-springs worn down. Luckily, the keycaps are replaceable. :-) You might like to swap notes with Yngvadottir, they do a lot of good work saving naval vessels at AfD; do you have any interest in Euronavies? p.s. Of course, from the disturbance in the Force, all your recent creation work was already well-known to me. ;-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Removed to help Bladesmulti concentrate. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
sources only please
Partially done, please add additional info as needed. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Claim#3. The term "Adima" first appeared in the 1700s, in a document now called the Ezourvedam. The ezourvedam was a hoax/forgery/similar of the Rigveda: inauthentic. It was originally written in French, and then later translated into Sanskrit.
- Source#3A.
- Source#3B. ((TBD))
- Source#3C. ((TBD))
- Claim#4. The terms "ADima/Heva" first appeared in 1869, in a document by Ramatsariar. This document was a hoax/forgery/similar of Jacolliot: inauthentic.
- Source#4A. ((TBD))
- Source#4B. ((TBD))
- Source#4C. ((TBD))
- Claim#5. Madam Blavatsky is an unreliable source, and much of what she claims is WP:FRINGE material, that must be treated very carefully.
- Source#5A. ((TBD))
- Source#5B. ((TBD))
- Source#5C. ((TBD))
- Claim#1. there is authentic story of "adma and jiva" in Rigveda (aka the original one... circa ~3000BC)).
- Source#1A. http://www.slideshare.net/ashokha/brahma-upanishad
- Comment This does not satisfy WP:RS, on first glance. Bladesmulti, can you tell me if this is WP:RS? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Source#1B. http://books.google.com/books?id=uDz9hJGr-HkC&pg=PT197&dq=%22atma%22+and+%22jiva%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6PEFU-6MIc-ziQfcyYCoDw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22atma%22%20and%20%22jiva%22&f=false
- Comment This is a book, so that it is an improvement. Bladesmulti, can you fill in the details of
{{cite web}}for this book? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment This is a book, so that it is an improvement. Bladesmulti, can you fill in the details of
- Source#1C. http://meluhha.com/newrv/verse.pl?v=1.164.20&q=sarv&acc=no&lang=ved&stratum=all&show=yes
- Comment This does not satisfy WP:RS, on first glance. Bladesmulti, can you tell me if this is WP:RS? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Claim#6. Max Muller doesn't disagree about Adima, but affirms that it has been driven to "Adam".[181]
- http://books.google.com/books?id=TMMKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA110&dq=%22we+should+be+driven+to+admit+that+adam%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fXIEU5zGCfG4iAezvIGQBg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22we%20should%20be%20driven%20to%20admit%20that%20adam%22&f=false
- comment Is that *really* what the source actually means? We must be careful with grammar here. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Claim#2. And there are more stories in Vedas, including "Yama and Yami".
- Source#2A. http://books.google.com/books?id=ftQWAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA521&dq=Yama+and+yami+%22first+couple%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LLwGU_nyNaGriAfmtICAAw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Yama%20and%20yami%20%22first%20couple%22&f=false
- Comment. This is a book, it might be WP:RS. Please fill in the details with
{{cite web}}. More importantly: who says Yama&Yami have anything to do with Adimo&Hevah? Does the book explicitly say "Yama is Adimo" in the text? See WP:SYNTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. This is a book, it might be WP:RS. Please fill in the details with
- Source#2B. http://www.constellationsofwords.com/Constellations/Gemini.html
- Comment. This does not look like WP:RS material. It is a website about astrology, correct? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Claim#3. In Bhagavada Gita it is "Satya" and "Satarupa".
- Source#3A. http://books.google.com/books?id=SSammk5xUUEC&pg=PT58&dq=%22first+couple%22&hl=en&sa=X#v=onepage&q=%22first%20couple%22&f=false
- Comment. This is a book, it might be WP:RS. Please fill in the details with
{{cite web}}. More importantly: who says Satya&Satarupa have anything to do with Adimo&Hevah? Does the book explicitly say "Yama is Adimo" in the text? See WP:SYNTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. This is a book, it might be WP:RS. Please fill in the details with
- Source#3B. http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-10-05.html
- comment. This might be a wikiReliable WP:PRIMARY source. It is a translation, right? Please fill in the
{{cite web}}information about the author and publisher and translator. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- comment. This might be a wikiReliable WP:PRIMARY source. It is a translation, right? Please fill in the
- Claim#7. Adimo is a character of a folk tale, which was written by Ramutsariar, prior to 2,000 of years before Bible.[9]
- Source#7A. Lazima Tutashinda (1997). The Bold Truth. Reciprocity Publishing. p. 233. original from the University of Michigan
- Claim#8. The story regards Adimo to be first human, and Heva to be first woman.[10]
- Source#8A. Robert Cowan (2010). The Indo-German Identification: Reconciling South Asian Origins and European Destinies, 1765-1885. Camden House Publishing. ISBN 9781571134639.
- Claim#13. Further Reading (related to Adimo)
- Source#13A. Adam's Ancestors: Race, Religion, and the Politics of Human Origins, by David N. Livingstone, 2008
- Claim#9. Along with Adimo, other characters include Heva, and three sons of Noe, they are Sherma, Hama and Jiapheta. They have been related by a number of sources, with Noah, Shem, Ham, Japeth.[11]
- Source#9A. Madalyn Murray O'Hair. What on earth is an atheist!. American Atheist Press. p. 186. "I am sorry - of Adimo and Heva, called Sherma, Hama and Jiapheta. Does this sound to you like Shem, and Ham and Japeth?" Originally from University of Michigan
- Claim#10. And regarded to have been replicated into middle eastern legends, by Kersey Graves[12][13],
- Source#10A. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/43550/43550-h/43550-h.htm
- Source#10B. http://users.hfcc.edu/~ahazlett/Blog/Bible%20Lectures%20-%20Intro%20to%20Bible.doc
- Source#10C. 346 Striking Analogies Between Christ and Krishnby Kersey Graves, 2010
- Claim#11. And regarded to have been replicated into middle eastern legends, Ralph Griffiths[14][15]
- Source#11A. "The Monthly Review - Volume 29" page 489, by Ralph Griffiths, G. E. Griffiths, Originally from :- Harvard University
- Source#11B. Frank Bruce Robinson. God ... and Dr. Bannister: This War Can be Stopped. p. 197. "the first created couple in the christian bible were Adam and Eve, while in the Hindoo bible they were Adam and Heva." Originally from University of California
- Claim#12. French philosopher Voltaire regarded Adam and eve to have been derived from Adimo and Heva. He described it as:- "What is even more extraordinary is that the Vedam of the ancient Brahmans teaches that the first man was Adimo and the first woman Procriti. Adimo signifies Lord, and Procriti means life, even as Heva, among the Phoenicians and the Hebrews, signified also life or the serpent. This conformity deserves special attention."[16]
- Source#12A. Ludo Rocher. Ezourvedam: A French Veda of the Eighteenth Century. John Benjamins Publishing. p. 69.
Comment by JJ: It's not clear to me what's the purpose of this section. The Ezourvedam and it's Adimo-story is one thing; Hindu-myths on the first man (& woman) are a second; to relate them all goes too far, I think. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- That is the point of the section, JJ. :-) Namely, from what I can tell, Bladesmulti doesn't understand that what you just said, is correct. Bladesmulti goes "too far", and says that Adimo is not the same as Ezourvedam. That is why Bladesmulti wants to say that Adimo isn't a forgery. Also, Bladesmulti wants to cover other creation-narratives (Satya/Yama/Manu/etc), and imply to the readership that they are all related.
- Of course, this is pure WP:SYNTH and WP:OR in some cases, but more often, just missing the finer points of WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Grammar-barrier is the root cause here. But also, refusal to stick with one thing, until it is deeply understood. Bladesmulti prefers to rush on into the next controversy. Therefore, #1) grammar must improve, #2) willingness to slow down and think hard and listen and understand deeply must improve, and #3) then Bladesmulti will be ready for the next phase of mentorship. This is why I'm trying to get a small and constrained topic-area, Joshua Jonathan, that we can have Bladesmulti focus on. So that we can review all the sources.
- p.s. See the edit-history of this page, if you missed the epic battle between Arildnordby and Bladesmulti (which ... much like the slightly-less-epic battle between JJ and Bladesmulti over on Talk:Adimo ... at the end Bladesmulti was not even clear there WAS a fight.) Bladesmulti is in such a busy-busy rush-rush hurry-hurry mode, that Bladesmulti cannot tell when other editors are getting angry. Bladesmulti needs to slow down. Bladesmulti needs to read carefully. Bladesmulti needs to understand before pushing forward. Wikipedia is not a videogame, after all. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
other
Removed to help Bladesmulti concentrate. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Arild, nobody is perfect. Hey, did't knew you vere a Saint, well a (Deleted Saint)Hafspajen (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Place your misplaced sarcasm against me elsewhere, Hafspajen. That is exgtremely mean of you, and you are to stop behaving in that despicable way.Arildnordby (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- I am affraid that was a joke, but you don't asume any good fait, do you? This thing you misunderstod now, really, it was not sarcasm or mean, why should it be? Hafspajen (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- No, I don't like sarcasm. Neither do I like patronizing nonsense from you that it was a "joke" from you, and that I am too dumb to get it. As for your motive, many like to crow gleefully. Your "hooray! Everything you wrote is deleted!!!" is that type of gleeful crowing behaviour.Arildnordby (talk)
- Thanks. Arild, nobody is perfect. Hey, did't knew you vere a Saint, well a (Deleted Saint)Hafspajen (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
..Oh, Arild Nordby please. I actually rather like you. There was a Saint called Arild, there was an article on it, Saint Arild and it was deleted, you know? Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Arild&action=edit&redlink=1 , and it really was a real Saint. He was called Arild. See 00:13, 30 October 2005 Splash (talk | contribs) deleted page Saint Arild (content was: '{{copyvio|url=Oxford Dictionary of Saints (OUP)}. Maybe we should rewrite that. 
Hafspajen (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Grumpy me, I guess. Anyway, my spirits rose when I read about the REAL St. Arild: "Saint Arild the virgin, martyr'd at Kington, near Thornbury, at whose tomb 'tis said many miracles were wrought, was translated hither in his time." The History and Antiquities of Gloucester. I beat my namesake saint on one account, at least! :-)Arildnordby (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- He was a virgin, Arildnordby? . Life is hard. Hafspajen (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, it seems he was a she. This is the oldest description of her fate: "Saynt Arild Virgin, martired at Kinton, ny to thornberye, by one Muncius a Tiraunt, who cut of hir Heade becawse she would not consent to lye withe hym. She was tranflatyd to this Monasterye, and hathe done great Miracles." I would not consent to lye with a tiraunt, me neither, so we are probably more similar than I first thought..Arildnordby (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Don't be silly, you two, don't you know, one should always lie to the tyrants. Otherwise, they might learn our sekrits! :-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, it seems he was a she. This is the oldest description of her fate: "Saynt Arild Virgin, martired at Kinton, ny to thornberye, by one Muncius a Tiraunt, who cut of hir Heade becawse she would not consent to lye withe hym. She was tranflatyd to this Monasterye, and hathe done great Miracles." I would not consent to lye with a tiraunt, me neither, so we are probably more similar than I first thought..Arildnordby (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Than we can start making great Miracles instead. :-)Hafspajen (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Miracle Whip. Wonder Bread. Save the whales. So many articles, so little time. Hey, Hafspajen, you think we should decorate a section of Corinne's talkpage with whales? That would be fun, maybe. I don't know if she likes the ocean, though. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- All of you are welcome to refresh yourself here! :-)Arildnordby (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Miracle Whip. Wonder Bread. Save the whales. So many articles, so little time. Hey, Hafspajen, you think we should decorate a section of Corinne's talkpage with whales? That would be fun, maybe. I don't know if she likes the ocean, though. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- He was a virgin, Arildnordby?
Bladesmulti cannot go on like this
Removed to help Bladesmulti concentrate. This is a relevant conversation. We will return to it, after we finish going through the sources. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Finally. BTW, I evoked some of my old pages yesterday. You should check User:Bladesmulti/Traditional African Religion and other religions, User:Bladesmulti/Mormonism in India, there are about 3 more, different subjects I would be working on. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- No. You need to work on one thing at a time. You do not understand Adimo. But you must learn to understand. Stop hurrying around. You cannot learn, until you stop hurrying around. Start above with claim#1. Look as the questions. Which ones are WP:RS. Answer the questions. Do not work on User:Bladesmulti/Traditional African Religion and other religions. Do not work on User:Bladesmulti/Mormonism in India. Work on Adimo, until you get it right. You need to focus. You need to concentrate. You are fighting. You are making people angry. Let me help you. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- [175], page is different than it used to be before. Like I explained above, there are more creation stories, about Daksha, then Bhuvya. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- No. Listen. We are doing one thing. Not two things. Not new things. We are going to work on Adimo. Do not work on User:Bladesmulti/Testing. Work on the sources for Adimo. Start with claim#1. We are not writing about all creation-narratives. We are writing about Adimo, until you understand. If you cannot understand, then you have to admit it. Do you understand what I am telling you? This is important. Work with me on Adimo. That is how you will learn to work together. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- What we will be writing about that? It is not really notable, because it similar to "Adima", ultimately referring to "Manu". Bladesmulti (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- We are re-writing. For practice. WP:N is very clear. If a topic meets WP:GNG, then wikipedia can have an article about the topic. We have an article about Adimo. The article says that Adimo is a folk-tale, introduced in the Ezourveda, written in the 1700s. We have sources to back that article up, checked by JJ, Arildnordby, Simon, Andy, and (somewhat) also myself. Is there an article on Adima? Is there an article on Manu? Are they the exact same topic as Adimo? Was Adima in the Ezourveda? Was Manu in the Ezourveda? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- So, we remove the redirect at Adimo, and start an article there again? Or do we insert it in the Ezourvedam page? I prefer the last option. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- There's an article on Manu (Hinduism); there's also an article on Purusha. And on Yama, Ātman (Hinduism) and Jiva. Linking them all together is asking for trouble. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Jiva has multiple meanings too, these articles highlight give whole view about the named characters. Not the creation story which is related to them. About adimo, What we can do is, write on my current draft about it, but not related to stories. It should be like "Manu is also referred as Adima(sanskrit : [][][]) meaning "first)", and add related sources. Nothing else. "adimo" will be redirected to the creation theories page, once it has been created. Since Adam has a etymology section, I can ask there someday, if the Sanskrit's word of origin can be added, because it seems accurate. Let us treat this as etymology. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- JJ, from the sources that Arildnordby found, methinks Adimo *is* identical with Ezourvedam. Therefore, the current arrangement, with Adimo as the redirect to Ezourvedam, is the proper arrangement. Also, Joshua Jonathan, I agree that trying to hook all the stories together is asking for trouble. They are distinct. Unless we have very wikiReliable Sources, that we understand 100%, we should not go glomming things together. Bladesmulti is specifically hoping to write a new article, which #1) gloms all the creation-narratives together as if they were the same thing, and #2) pretends that Adimo is a creation-narrative unrelated to Ezourvedam. Strongly sounds like trouble to me. :-) So I suggest we work on Abel. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Jiva has multiple meanings too, these articles highlight give whole view about the named characters. Not the creation story which is related to them. About adimo, What we can do is, write on my current draft about it, but not related to stories. It should be like "Manu is also referred as Adima(sanskrit : [][][]) meaning "first)", and add related sources. Nothing else. "adimo" will be redirected to the creation theories page, once it has been created. Since Adam has a etymology section, I can ask there someday, if the Sanskrit's word of origin can be added, because it seems accurate. Let us treat this as etymology. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- There's an article on Manu (Hinduism); there's also an article on Purusha. And on Yama, Ātman (Hinduism) and Jiva. Linking them all together is asking for trouble. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- So, we remove the redirect at Adimo, and start an article there again? Or do we insert it in the Ezourvedam page? I prefer the last option. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- We are re-writing. For practice. WP:N is very clear. If a topic meets WP:GNG, then wikipedia can have an article about the topic. We have an article about Adimo. The article says that Adimo is a folk-tale, introduced in the Ezourveda, written in the 1700s. We have sources to back that article up, checked by JJ, Arildnordby, Simon, Andy, and (somewhat) also myself. Is there an article on Adima? Is there an article on Manu? Are they the exact same topic as Adimo? Was Adima in the Ezourveda? Was Manu in the Ezourveda? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Stick to the course pointed out to you by the mentors, Bladesmulti. You believe Sanskrit texts identifies Manu with Adima, but that is wrong, it is 18th century William Jones who suspected it. Here is what a modern scholar writes about this:
Francis Wilford (...) would continue Jones' work and "prove" that Manu, son of Brahma, was not Adima or Adam as Jones had suspected, but Noah
- What we will be writing about that? It is not really notable, because it similar to "Adima", ultimately referring to "Manu". Bladesmulti (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- No. Listen. We are doing one thing. Not two things. Not new things. We are going to work on Adimo. Do not work on User:Bladesmulti/Testing. Work on the sources for Adimo. Start with claim#1. We are not writing about all creation-narratives. We are writing about Adimo, until you understand. If you cannot understand, then you have to admit it. Do you understand what I am telling you? This is important. Work with me on Adimo. That is how you will learn to work together. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Note that the modern commentator, Robert Cowan, gives no sort of accept to Jones' speculation! Therefore, to run down an alley on etymology you now believe is true is not at all productive. Rather, focus on the course set up for you by 74 Source by CowanArildnordby (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: Cowan's OWN views precedes this quote, beginning at page 65. In academic tough language, Cowan dismisses Jones' ideas about Hindu roots here.Arildnordby (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Cowan is not dismissing anything, he further adds a quote by Schumacher for describing its meaning. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the proper Sanskrit word for "first man" is adipurusha, not "adima", as you can see here: A Sanskrit-English Dictionary: Etymologically and Philologically Arranged. Remember that the phrase "first one" not at all needs to mean "first man"; that is what adipurasha means. Arildnordby (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- I hope you agree now, that you really should stick with the course your mentors are preparing for you.Arildnordby (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Adima is the word for "original", "aboriginal",[176]. "Adi" means same thing, like "first". I never brought anything related to "first man", I said "first", above. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- I hope you agree now, that you really should stick with the course your mentors are preparing for you.Arildnordby (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the proper Sanskrit word for "first man" is adipurusha, not "adima", as you can see here: A Sanskrit-English Dictionary: Etymologically and Philologically Arranged. Remember that the phrase "first one" not at all needs to mean "first man"; that is what adipurasha means. Arildnordby (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Cowan is not dismissing anything, he further adds a quote by Schumacher for describing its meaning. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: Cowan's OWN views precedes this quote, beginning at page 65. In academic tough language, Cowan dismisses Jones' ideas about Hindu roots here.Arildnordby (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
First off, thanks to 74 for setting up highly specific points relative to source criticism, culled from a number of posts. Whether "Adimo" should be made into an article or not, or already has been made, is beside the main point. The latter discussions/disputes provides ample material for Bladesmulti to see how he argues, and why that is very frustrating to others. He might not see that himself, but unless he understands the difference in quality between Jacolliot and Blavatsky on the one hand, and, say, Max Müller on the other, he will always get into such disputes in the future. The reason why, JJ,I think it is highly relevant to bring in other creation myths, is that B rushes from this to that, never being able to stop and reflect at a single instance, but always throws in new material he hopes, but isn't sure, bolsters some part of his argument,or if it doesn't, rushes on to say he never said what he said originally, but what the "new" source says. Therefore, he remains locked in a vicious circle, never being able to wholly dismiss wrong ideas he has held, nor to see the importance of critical evaluation between two different accounts. I hope you guys work this out, but I am out of here (and would have remained so, if I hadn't been specifically asked to comment on Ezourvedam). I chose to speak on B's lack of understanding of source material, but he is too far below the level on which I have anything constructive to offer him.Arildnordby (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is after all, based on Consensus, great argument/discussion, not Truth or any opinion. Interestingly, the consensus I found here, taking points of both JJ and Arildnorby, we can only agree with following points;-
- Separate page for Creation stories - Related to Hindus.
- Avoid/leave the whole Adima/heva referred story.
- Now these two are the main and probably only points, describes everything. I am in agreement of that. Anyone else? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Those are the main points going forward. But what are the main points going backwards? What lessons did you learn, Bladesmulti? Give us those points, too, please. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
example: Cowan
A. Cowan dismisses Jones' ideas about Hindu roots here.[177] — Arildnordby
- B. Cowan is not dismissing anything. — Bladesmulti
- JJ. To be done Joshua Jonathan?
- C. To be done CorinneSD?
- H. To be done Hafspajen?
- 74. To be done (( I will also comment. )) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
example: Cowan
A. Cowan dismisses Jones' ideas about Hindu roots here.[178] — Arildnordby
- B. Cowan is not dismissing anything. — Bladesmulti
- JJ. To be done Joshua Jonathan?
- C. To be done CorinneSD?
- H. To be done Hafspajen?
- 74. To be done (( I will also comment. )) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- What I learned is, that we must write only those things that can be backed up easily. And go along with the consensus. The two points I mentioned, were final outcome of the whole argument. Which should be judged by the quality, than the amount, siding, etc.
- Obviously one of my page is not yet constructed. But once it is completed, added, there will be a better view. All articles of wikipedia are not complete, there is always something that is yet to come. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Stepped back for a while
One gets tired. Fiddle Faddle 12:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Enjoy a well-deserved rest, my friend, and when you return, I'll have redecorated the whole place in garish colors. :-) While you are gone, I might not even miss you, since I will be busy chatting with my *new* friend Fiddle_Faddle, who seems quite nice. p.s. See also, the mysterious User_talk:74, and more interestingly, User_talk:74.137.108.115 who may yet usurp that account. Good to know my current jersey number has a worthy history. ;-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
No plush? Cutesy but deadly!
Do you experience a lack of teddybears on your page? Can be helped. Hafspajen (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
-
I just ate your shoes! -
Secretly, I abhor being cute.
-
Jump you chicken, it's only eight meters to the ground.
-
I once had an editor like you for breakfast
-
Hmmm... tastes like chicken.... -
So many articles, so little time.
-
You will be assimilated. -
No parachuuuuuuuutes!
.jpg)
An idea. [User:Number 57|Number]] Hafspajen (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
(( continued ))
- ::Do you really belive that there are no references for those sentences? Oh, yes there are.
+
- He was often surrounded by Swedish visitors to Paris, and assisted and advised travelling Swedish artists.[citation needed]
+
- In 1783 he contributed two paintings, a self-portrait and a portrait of the artist Anne Vallayer-Coster, the latter being shown for the first time to a wider audience.[9][citation needed]
+
- there are references for everything, in books and everywhere. Parts of one of the book is here. REF USIG ONRE OF THE BOOKS book (( sinebot is missing, this is from Hafspajen , copied here to stop orange-bar-of-dooming yngvadottir ))
- Fair enough, keep your shorts on. :-) We will get it figured out. <grin> 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- 'yngvadottir has already removed herself from the DYK, but it was she who wrote and fixed and checked allmost all of those refs, really. I don't use to go and doubt her. And by the way it is all in art books. Elementary knowledge on Roslin, really. Hafspajen (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- At the moment, there are several (minor) troubles about the concrete referencing, though. I certainly don't doubt, Hafspajen, that you DO have references for each and every claim made in this article. But, it is so easy in the course of restructuring, making improvements in how to present material, rearrange sentence positioning, that almost-equal-but-not-quite references get messed up a bit, so that particular claims of factoids no longer are supported by the accompanying reference! For example, I am definitely believing it was the 8 January Roslin got married, but none of the online resources supports that. I'm sure it is in one of the offline resources you have at your disposal, but then your article can be imrpoved from present by EITHER a) Removing date, keeping marriage year (for which present ref is amply good enough), OR b) Replace the given online source with an offline source giving the date as well, not just the year.Arildnordby (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- This article is under rewiew NOW, by other editors. yngvadottir has already removed herself from the DYK, but it was she who wrote and fixed and checked allmost all of those refs, really. I don't use to go and doubt her. And by the way it is all in art books. Elementary knowledge on Roslin, really.
Norway is in Scandinavia.[citation needed]
It is like saying Norway is not in Scandinavia. Hafspajen (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, yes. It is not like that, oh Hafspajen exaggerationist. :-) And I'm pretty sure we cannot use Bukowskis online store, as a Reliable Source. But we *do* have reliable sources, and will have to find them, or temporarily remove the sentences which are not-fully-properly-sourced, to the talkpage. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
((e/c)) Arildnordby, do you understand why Hafspajen is having ownership problems? Hafspajen is worried about the DYK deadline, when some editor was supposed to come look at it. Adding tags for problematic portions will cause the article to fail. Please, either #1) leave the sentences in, and mention on the talkpage that somebody should review the sentences after the DYK gauntlet. Alternatively, if the sentence is too far-fetched to leave in, #2) remove it temporarily, and copy it to the talkpage, so the tagging does not mess up the DYK. A shorter article won't hurt anything. Make sense? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Do ALL people marry 8 January, Hafspajen?Arildnordby (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- And, to make it clear: I'm not nagging about these details just to be difficult. The article is, in my view great, HIGHLY informative, extremely well-structured and comprehensive (and is in my view, zooming towards FA-status). But, a great article is made outstanding when all those excellent references you have found are placed at their relevant places.Arildnordby (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Do ALL people marry 8 January, Hafspajen?Arildnordby (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, I didn't know about any deadline here, 74. I made my comments as a reader. The principal editors dedicated to the review will make their adjustments here, not me.Arildnordby (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)::Thank you. Bukowskis is not an online store. Bukowski is like Christies, and the only thing I am saying that they do mention it also, otherwise is in those book every thing you doubt. Go and buy those books and you will find the stuff there. There are two books as references. actuall some ref say they married 5th othes say 8thHafspajen (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I understand you didn't know. Hafspajen forgot to tell, you and I forgot also. Your changes are good, and correct. But if you keep taggin, Hafspajen is worried that Roslin will fail DYK review (again... already had one fail), which is right now, reviewer could appear at any time, and reviewers don't fix things. FA-status is not today, however. If you find problems that must be fixed today, remove sentences and stick on talkpage. If sentences are plausible enough for DYK purposes, just stick a note on talkpage for somebody to fix them before FA-review. But the DYK review is now. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- If there is source discrepancy on date, I'll just remove the date, keeping the year.Arildnordby (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Whatever you think is best. Here is the nomination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Alexander_Roslin It looks like one reviewer just went through the article, 2 minutes before your last post here at 21:26 .... Hafspajen, are there other reviewers that come after Drmies? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have now removed claims needing referencing, some other have confusing referencing as said on Talk Page, but I've left it in.Arildnordby (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. We can go back and play with it when it gets off the main page. If it ever gets there. An I a man or a muppet.....Hafspajen (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Consider my removal of the 1783 incidents an emergency measure I only did due to DYK. The sentence SHOULD, ideally, be in the article, but it needs a referencing I have been unable to find at this moment. Thus, although I hate to remove probably true and provably valuable material like this, I decided for the hatchet procedure.Arildnordby (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- My doctor gave me one of those once... hatchet procedure is actually quite painless, once you get used to it. :-) I've added some tidbits that I scrounged up, to talkpage only. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Fortunately, deaths at Wikipedia are reversible. Checking up your source collection right now.Arildnordby (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- My doctor gave me one of those once... hatchet procedure is actually quite painless, once you get used to it. :-) I've added some tidbits that I scrounged up, to talkpage only. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Consider my removal of the 1783 incidents an emergency measure I only did due to DYK. The sentence SHOULD, ideally, be in the article, but it needs a referencing I have been unable to find at this moment. Thus, although I hate to remove probably true and provably valuable material like this, I decided for the hatchet procedure.Arildnordby (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I am telling you guys it is in the BOOK! there are two books are in reflist. THERE IS EVERYTHING YOU CAN'T FIND, eh. Have prople nowadays forgot about books? If it is not online is not there? Ugh. Hafspajen (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Then the book should be cited as the reference (PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE!), rather than using as reference something not containing claim. (NOT ACCEPTABLE!) Again, you have good sources, but a good source asserted to support a particular claim it doesn't make is NOT a good reference at that particular spot. Note that I have assumed good faith, and policy of acceptance ALL instances where an offline resource has been given as ref. ONLY when online refs do not support previous claim have I made complains, because I then could check for myself it didn't suffice as refArildnordby (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Whatever you think is best. Here is the nomination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Alexander_Roslin It looks like one reviewer just went through the article, 2 minutes before your last post here at 21:26 .... Hafspajen, are there other reviewers that come after Drmies? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- If there is source discrepancy on date, I'll just remove the date, keeping the year.Arildnordby (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Man it is cited. Holkers, Märta (2007). Den svenska målarkonstens historia. Stockholm: Bonnier. p. 88. ISBN 978-91-0-011735-1.
Bjurström, Per (1993). Roslin. Höganäs: Wiken. pp. 30–40. ISBN 978-91-0-011735-1. Man it is full of pages. Hafspajen (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- WHAT is cited, precisely WHERE? Again, just about the only points I have against this article is that tiny factoids succeeded by immediate refs, are unreferenced by THOSE refs. I have chosen to make no complaints on tiny factoids where the immediately following ref is an offline source. Please, let us talk on tne Talk Page for those particular instances we are in disagrement about. I will NOT contest any of the offline sources, ONLY when online sources referred to do not supportArildnordby (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hafspajen, in the olden days (like 2005) ther rules were that articles did not need inline-cites for material. Nowadays, it is usually a bit stricter, as mr.choppers and drmies will tell you... which means, instead of just saying that it is in the book, it is better to add the ref-tags, and say what *page* of the book the supporting-material is on. And have I mentioned that shouting is silly? You two are supposed to be giving Bladesmulti a good lead-by-example, right? ;-) p.s. And less seriously, Hafspajen, in the 1980s we had usenet, and in the 1990s we had the web, and in the 2000s we had smartphones, and in the 2010s we have facebook. After looking on facebook for "Alexander Roslin" he does not even have a facebook page, so he must not be notable, and we should delete him, right? <ducks> <runs for cover> ... <gggrrrriiiinnnnnn> 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- .Hafspajen: Although I haven't found a direct quote from 74, I remain convinced that he (she/it??) shares my assessment that you and the other editors have made a damned good article here. It is because we think the article is great that we step up our criticisms of it, because you and your co-editors have amply proved competent in creating great articles. Other types of criticisms should be launched against other editors; those with the capacity to reach for the stars should also be halted on their way there, so that no mishaps on their journey to the expected, reachable goals happen. Different criteria for different editors, that is!Arildnordby (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oh thank you for all your kind words. Hafspajen (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- If you feel that some of my edits on the Roslin page, or the Talk Page, unduly prevents it from getting a well-deserved recognition, say so. The words I wrote above was sincerely meant by me, and I regard your thanks as sincerely meant as well. We're in here to make great articles, aren't we? The Roslin page is, in my view, already worthy of recognition, and my nitpicking has been in order to remove obstacles to its status as FA (where it essentially belongs, in my opinion)Arildnordby (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Your edits were fine, as far as I can tell. Hafspajen was just a wee bit over-excited today. No worries. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- If you feel that some of my edits on the Roslin page, or the Talk Page, unduly prevents it from getting a well-deserved recognition, say so. The words I wrote above was sincerely meant by me, and I regard your thanks as sincerely meant as well. We're in here to make great articles, aren't we? The Roslin page is, in my view, already worthy of recognition, and my nitpicking has been in order to remove obstacles to its status as FA (where it essentially belongs, in my opinion)Arildnordby (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yup, agree. Hafspajen is usually very laid-back, but he is stressed out today. :-) Kinda like a daddy, about to have a new baby delivered. Maybe we can name it Alexander D. Y. K. Hafspajen? ;-) You didn't do anything wrong Arildnordby, no worries. In fact, you helped quite a bit, from what I saw. Thanks. Once things have settled down a bit for the new family-members, we can start significantly improving life for little Alexander/Alexandre, methinks. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Even newborn babies perfectly cute will need considerate, loving environment to grow even further!Arildnordby (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Baby, here is some pages for YOU. http://www.artwarefineart.com/Search/ArtistBiography.asp?ArtistID=59706 http://swordandsea.blogspot.se/2011/02/art-of-alexandre-roslin.html http://oscarlars.com/alexander-roslin-biography-of-a-master/ http://books.google.se/books/about/Alexander_Roslin.html?id=YcNNAAAAYAAJ&redir_esc=y http://www.lib-art.com/artgallery/1452-alexander-roslin.html http://books.google.se/books/about/Alexander_Roslin.html?id=Utp2KAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y http://www.pinterest.com/lucindabrant/18th-century-power-paunch/ Oh, yes he has a facebook.Alexander Roslin – 18th century blog Hafspajen (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- It is not about showing me pages substantiating claims made on Article (I believe you, 100%), but about including on Article page relevant links!!Arildnordby (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Arildnordby, you silly billy, those links are for me, not for the article. :-) that was in response to my snarky "where iz hiz facebuuk pagez" comment, you know what I mean? Almost all of them are blogs, although there are a couple google-books hits in there.
- As for your recurring point, yeah, we know. And we can all work on that, as we have time. WP:DEADLINE applies to fixing up the ref-matches. (Whereas the DYK review is WP:TIAD stuff.) But in any case, it is hard for hafspajen to connect the refs with the sentences, because as an artist, Hafspajen spends a lot of time thinking about how the article LOOKS and how the article FLOWS and how the reader will FEEL when they read it. That's very valuable stuff. But of course, sometimes Hafspajen moves a sentence around, and doesn't bring the ref it used to be paragraph-attached-onto, along with it. Other times, a picture gallery will get added, which takes a lot of thought, and that leads to small mistakes elsewhere, such as in ref-formatting.
- Believe me, I have the same problems, because I cannot even read the refs, most of the time! No dern Swedish skillz, makes me like a floppy fish. So instead, mostly I'll hop around like a kangaroo, and wave my pom-poms like a cheerleader. :-) But fixing the ref-matches is something that will be hard for me, I'll have to rely on machine-translation, and then double-check it with your or Hafspajen at the end anyways, right? I *did* find the ref that said he signed a painting "Roslin YYYY" rather than "Roslin Suedoes" at least once in his life, so that's one thing I managed. But it is slow going, for sure.
- Anyways, great articles take time, but yes, it is what we're all here for, as you pointed out. And speaking of, do you have any Dutch or Afrikanns in your brain, that I can swipe? There is a new school from South Africa, which needs a bit of a boost, to get from stub to not-such-a-stub. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Aha. Well it wasn't me moving those sentences artistically around, it was the others. My sentences were all conected to refs. But than everybody stareted dislocating everything and removing here and there and then youy came and say this is not there. It WAS there. Everything. Hafspajen (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- CONGRATULATIONS!! Article is, well-deservedly, promoted! :-)Arildnordby (talk) 08:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ugh, it went to the end. But now I am really tired of it. Hafspajen (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- It is not about showing me pages substantiating claims made on Article (I believe you, 100%), but about including on Article page relevant links!!Arildnordby (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
rough draft
Hmmm...
well, whale?
.JPG)
grammarz awordz
.jpg)
_on_Robert_Bening,_a_German_soldier,_during_an_award_120829-A-BS310-564.jpg){kind=icon}
"For your expert eye, when seeking grammatical targets. OLD-SCHOOL! Thank you." :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
SORCER - multiple issues table
Hello 74
I would like to ask You - what can we do with this "multiple issues" table on top of article ... looks like it's no longer valid (at least not all points) ... Do I understand well that it should go the same way as request edit procedure?
Pawelpacewicz (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
datemath
- ((subst:#time:c)) when saved.
- ((#expr: -1*( ((round| ((DATEDIFF2| 2015-02-02 |2014-01-01)) |0)) ) )) days.
- ((#expr: -1*( ((round| ((DATEDIFF2| 2015-02-02 |((subst:#time:c)))) |0)) ) )) days.
- 2014-02-27T16:03:13+00:00 when saved.
- 397 days.
- 339 days. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah?
♥♥ Hafspajen (talk)♥♥ 09:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions
Schvaneveldt Article
After looking at your industrial/organizational dispute, I don't think I have anything useful to contribute. My expertise is rather far removed from the issues in question. Sorry.
After looking at your edits to the "Roger W. Schvaneveldt" page, I have a much better understanding of what the other editors were looking for. I appreciate your efforts there.
I am not in a hurry to get this out. I found a few more descriptions of our 1971 paper as "seminal." Would it be useful to add them? Also you did not include the link to the Google Scholar page showing a list of papers and citations. Do you think that is inappropriate?
I'm thinking I should spend another day fixing up the article and then resubmitting it. Does that sound reasonable?
cheers, -roger Schvan (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- I see the wiki gods have outpaced us with an acceptance to "real wikipedia land." I will try to improve the article. Your comments on my questions above would be greatly appreciated. I must admit that all the tooing and frooing with various editors is a bit confusing. best, -roger Schvan (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- So they have, congratulations. :-) AfC is real wikipedia land, too, but it is a special corner thereof, in the areas hidden from the usual public view. Kinda like *this* page we're on now. ;-) These are the sekrit-elf-passages of wikipedia. I've replied, in my usual excruciating depth, but over at your own talkpage. Feel free to ping me here any time, but stuff on your talkpage will be easier for you to keep track of, and also, easier for Drmies and Yngvadottir to leap in and correct me. They might worry I'll corrupt you. ;-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much
Thanks for your help.RosylynGrock (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Rosylyn Grock.86.181.139.204 (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
A very nice salt mine
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
![[86]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/f/f4/20130412054746!Julie_Andrews_-_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
![[87]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sarong_(PSF).png){kind=link}
![[113]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hako_Citymaster_2000.jpg){kind=link}
![[114]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hako_Hakomatic_B_45.jpg){kind=link}
![[115]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hako_Jonas_1200.jpg){kind=link}
![[116]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hako_Citytrac_4200_DA_M%C3%A4hsaugkombination.jpg){kind=link}
![[117]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HakoMatic_Stufenlos.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Roger Schvaneveldt Edits
Roger W. Schvaneveldt edits
Hi 74,
I have tried to follow your advice in suggesting edits on the Roger W. Schvaneveldt talk page. I would value your feedback about my attempt here. In part, I was following a suggestion to include more papers in the publication list, but the changes also references other areas of my work. You advice is greatly appreciated.
cheers, Schvan (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 13:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
-TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank You
Hi 74,
Thank you so much for you help and instruction. I am now pleasantly surprised by the community's fairness and express my gratitude to you and the others who have helped me put this together. I would like to know more about the community, so when I am not at work I can possibly get involved.
Now on to work business. Am I all set up? I believe I need to make a request still to unblock the username. I am not sure though and don't want to log-in to the account and make an edit to anything in case editors will think I am editing. Because, I will not edit now that I am more familiar with your policies.
However, I do have a few questions. The article was not complete, and I was creating it going from references. There are many date gaps. Particularly, there is a reference that has not been used regarding an article we had in The Atlantic about blue collar jobs and the economy. It highlights key facts about the industry.
Do I list the references on the talk page and hope that an editor notices them and continues to add to the article, or what is the best approach?
Thank you so much. --Sarahehill (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Sarahehill: I already unblocked and renamed your account earlier today (you are actually editing from it now!). Thank you for your contributions. Thank you also, 74, for your attention to this matter. –xenotalk 17:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Xeno: Thank you ALL. I will continue onward then and will follow the Wikipedia standards as I finish these edits and continue to grow my personal presence in the community. I appreciate the monitoring and instruction. This has been exceptional.--Sarahehill (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- You are surely welcome. :-) To learn more about being a wikipedian — you are already one you know — you can follow the links that Yngvadottir left you in your welcome-template, which is now moved to your new user-talkpage. Alternatively, you can learn by doing; be WP:BOLD, find an article that interests you, and start improving it. Don't ask if you can improve it: just improve it. If you make mistakes, which as a beginner is unavoidable, no worries: folks will let you know. Stay nice, don't get in edit-wars, stick to your sources, remain neutral, and you'll do just fine. Let us know if you have any troubles, ask questions at WP:TEAHOUSE as needed, and have fun.
- As to your specific questions, I will give brief answers here, and left you some more-detailed instructions on your own talkpage. "Am I all set up?" Yes, for the most part. We have the article on the company in mainspace, and you have been unblocked, and your username is 100% fixed. I suggest changing this bit of your userpage, and replace this ("The sole purpose of this account is to create a page to represent Standard Motor Products, Inc. to the public") with something more appropriate like this ("I will work on pages related to SMP, but only with proper care; I am also thinking of editing from home, on my own time.") Or whatever you would like to say.
- Going forward, you should NOT share the password for User:sarahehill with other people at the office. For copyright reasons, one human per username. Other folks can make their own usernames-n-passwords, if they like, or they can just edit without a username like I do... note that the IP address of the computer they use will appear. You, because you have an account, should edit from that account. If you would like to keep your home-editing and your work-editing on different usernames, for improved password-security, that is allowed, see WP:MULTIPLE. If you do that, you have to "link" the accounts by putting a message on both userpages ("this human also edits as User:..."). It is easiest to just use one account, of course; I recommend using something straightforward like User:sarahehill_SMP as your second account, if you do decide to try the WP:MULTIPLE approach. The guidelines of WP:COI apply even for unregistered editing, of course. See also WP:MEATPUPPET; asking everybody in the office to come help you edit is almost certainly a bad idea! It would be great to have them editing wikipedia, but not great to have them as helpers at the Standard Motor Products article, because of the inherent COI issues; see WP:CONSENSUS.
- That should cover the usernames-stuff, I hope, but it is unfortunately complex, so let me know if something seems less than clear-as-mud. For your content-questions, about adding more refs, and filling in gaps in the history, I tried to answer that at your page. Best way is to write up a suggestion (complete with clean neutral prose and bullet-proof references), and then paste that suggesting to Talk:Standard Motor Products. You can also just provide refs, and if an uninvolved editor has the time and wherewithal to read the source, and compose paragraphs themselves, that also works. However, methinks the better way is to practice writing neutrally yourself, in the long run. So basically, 1) list the refs on the article talkpage, 2) suggest a prose-summary of the ref, 3) joggle the elbow of somebody on their user-talkpage or at the WP:TEAHOUSE or via WP:ERQ, and 4) work with them to get it neutral and encyclopedic, after which 5) they will jam the final version into mainspace. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- ^ [179]
- ^ [180]
- ^ [181]
- ^ http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB484&search_keywords=
- ^ http://www.scribd.com/doc/180634827/US-Department-of-Education-letter
- ^ http://district29.cssrc.us/content/senator-huff-opposes-measure-could-boost-high-school-dropout-rate
- ^ http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-state-senate-approves-testing-20130910,0,6302993.story#axzz2nOBKecDI
- ^ Bakalar, Nicholas (2006-08-15). "Coffee as a Health Drink? Studies Find Some Benefits". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-07-28.
- ^ "Alexander Roslin". Antik. Retrieved 21 February 2014.
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |