User talk:WAS 4.250: Difference between revisions
→Warning: expanding |
|||
| Line 549: | Line 549: | ||
== Warning == |
== Warning == |
||
Do not edit other editors' user pages. |
Do not edit other editors' user pages. Please do not engage in disruptive [[WP:POINT]] edits. If you have a problem with something on my user page, you should leave a note on my talk page and not just peremptorily edit without an explanation as per [[WP:UP]]. --[[User:Mantanmoreland|Mantanmoreland]] 12:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 12:51, 12 April 2007
New stuff at the bottom, please. Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 7 | 12 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the speedy deletion tag from the above article. While the subject might not be notable, the article does assert notability in a reasonable way. You may wish to list it at WP:AFD instead, to get a broader consensus on the article. Thanks for your time and your hard work reporting these articles - even though I'm not deleting this particular one, your efforts are very much appreciated. Kafziel Talk 16:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Brian Peppers ANI thread
Thank you for your contribution to that discussion. I actually recalled having read what you quoted, but I mistakenly thought it was in WP:NOT rather than the BIO policy, and hence didn't locate it. Thanks again. Newyorkbrad 00:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- WP:BLP = Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
- WP:BIO = Wikipedia:Notability (people)
- WP:NOT = Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
WAS 4.250 04:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry; I knew that; just a slip of the tongue/fingers. Regards, Newyorkbrad 08:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 8 | 19 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for those delicious cookies!
Hi! I really liked those cookies, I've seen many cookies, but none of them so delicious!!! Now, I have had lots of fun, even on the McKeith page... More seriously though, I will take a look into the links that you gave me, and read them carefully because I'm simply not the "winning battle" kind either. In fact, I'm the kind that generally loses battles, so it is best for me to learn to avoid battles. :) --Merzul 22:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Influenza history section
Hi there, thanks for watching over the influenza article. I had also noticed that paragraph added to the history section. I got in touch with the original contributor after adding that citation needed tag. He seems to have been referring to the ancient history of influenza and particularly the conditions that produced the first known epidemic in humans. He said he'd hunt up a reference and then reword this and put it back, hope this will solve the problem. TimVickers 20:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- It takes modern technology to distinguish flu from other diseases so there can be no evidence of ancient flu that warrents that speculative addition. It's easy to come up with biased claims. Reliable meaningful claims are a horse of a different color. Perhaps he should post his anti-intensive farming speculations (with sources) on the talk page. WAS 4.250 20:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it is more directed towards the ancient practice of using pig manure to feed fish farms, which is still common in China and a factor in cross-species jumps. I've added a few references and reworded the section a bit, see what you think. The link to Egypt seems tenuous, since I can't find many sources on this. TimVickers 20:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thoughts off the top of my head: I haven't read the provided sources yet, flu is a multi-species disease but the word is used as if it only means flu-in-humans so rewriting to clarify the distinction is needed, the speculation seems unwarrented - I'll be curious to see what possible evidence they have since disease was common and writing uncommon, we even today know too little about the causes of flu pandemics to assert what is being asserted about long ago - all in all I think it oughta be moved to the talk page .... but I haven't read the sources yet. I'll read them by tomorrow. Maybe by then the wording will be better or else at least moved to talk. See ya tomorrow. Cheers. Be well. WAS 4.250 21:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you will be able to access that first Nature review I added. If you E-mail me through my user page and I can send you the Pdf. TimVickers 21:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I just read [1] [2] and "Human influenza pandemics commonly arise by genetic reassortment between human and avian viruses in pigs. Yet global developments in aquaculture--the so-called 'Blue Revolution'--will mean increased co-location of people, ducks and pigs." I can't believe you are supporting this edit in the history section. It is rank speculation. WAS 4.250 21:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The references are indeed unsatisfactory, but the fact that we had no material on the origin of this disease means we need to add something. We can either replace this edit with new material, or add alternative theories and better references this existing paragraph. I did this with the first sentence, if you follow back in the edit history, and I'm now happy with the first part but not the ancient egypt speculation. I see edits like these as suggestions for improvement and the basis for expansion and correction. Of course, if after some research we find this is unfounded it must be removed, but it is an honest attempt to improve the article. TimVickers 21:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
What do you think of the new version? I'm hoping to hear back from an expert on Ancient Egypt soon. TimVickers 21:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Without any additional looking at anything, I ask you to fully understand our policy on original research while at the same time understanding that if I believe a claim then IAR works for me for that claim. On the one hand your expert carries no weight in wikipedia-world; on the other hand their knowlegde of sources can work wonders; on yet another hand their "expertise" can be a conflict of interest if their reputation conflicts with the issue at hand; on yet another hand ... well wikipedia is simply not set up for experts ... but you and I care deeply about truth and we agree experts help a lot with that. Please do your best and I'll not revert until I don't see another choice. I'll look at the "new version" later. This has got me worked up more than is good for me. Time for a cookie. WAS 4.250 01:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the link, that would be the one -- febtalk 07:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 9 | 26 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikia/Wikipedia Conflict of Interest
WAS, your comments about the Essjay flap are really resonating with me. Dangerous ground we must be standing on, if we're standing there together today! I posted a response to your comment on Jimbo's talk page. I'm sure that Guy will delete it soon. But, honestly, I know that Wikia's "contributions" to Wikipedia are probably a "loss leader" sort of arrangement. (That is, I'll bet Wikia spends more money ON Wikipedia than it gets OUT of Wikipedia.) HOWEVER, why do they make so many efforts that would suggest it is the other way around? It's getting more and more embarrassing to have Jimmy wearing two distinctly different hats, saying he can tell which hat is which, and then he appoints someone to the ArbCom AND hires them at Wikia, in the very same month. What other cross-pollutants are fouling the system that we don't know about? --72.94.158.49 15:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC) (It's Kohs.)
- Essjay's behavior reminds me of your behavior. My evaluation of those behaviors result in my not being able to trust anything either of you say. WAS 4.250 18:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Harsh but fair. I came along to nuke the above using Troll-B-Gon, but I see there is no need. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any interest in helping to write this? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll answer on your talk page. WAS 4.250 06:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I would very much like you to be involved. You have good ideas and insights and you express yourself really well. The thing I'm aiming for is simply to come up with a way of judging when we should allow BLPs to be deleted if the subject asks for it. I wasn't thinking of going into other possibilities such as stubbing, but then again, maybe a range of options would be better. I don't have fixed ideas about it. I have an instinct that Wikipedia shouldn't force barely notable people into situations where they have to nervously check their bios every day for the rest of their lives, in case someone finds the newspaper article from 1972 that mentions the affair with the local vicar. But I have no clear idea of how to word things or of where the lines should be drawn. As for Brandt, I think that issue is going to be on the boil for the foreseeable future, so the timing may never be ideal, but there's no direct relationship. The only connection is that I've learned quite a bit from reading his complaints, and I've learned from the others I've been involved in too e.g. Gregory Lauder-Frost and Rachel Marsden. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Coffee?
I'm going to be staying a PATH stop or two away from you for the entire first week of April. Would love to meet up if you're up for it. You're one of a small number of people here that I've come to think of a friend. "No thanks" is certainly an OK answer if you'd rather not, but I thought I'd give it a shot.
On a not-entirely-unrelated matter, you can get a single-blind untraceable throw-away email address at sneakemail if you'd ever find that useful. I used it, for example, to politely suggest to a 30 year old gentleman from Pakistan that he might like to reconsider hitting on my 16 year old daughter. :-/
Hope to hear from you. Waitak 12:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've come to think of a friend, too. But no thanks. I wrote a long paragraph explaining why and deleted it. Maybe you could chat with me on this page and say what you would have said over coffee? WAS 4.250 13:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's okay - I more than half suspected the answer would be no, and I respect the boundaries you've established, but it just seemed like too good an opportunity to not at least offer, given that I'm coming from the other side of the planet to 20 minutes away. I'm about as safe as it gets, in terms of most of the reasons I could think of for not wanting to meet - but you don't owe me an explanation for what yours might be. Do let me know if you reconsider. Waitak 15:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Confused
Did you mean to place this edit in its own section or somewhere else? I'm a bit confused what it has to do with the community noticeboard closing discussion. Best, IronGargoyle 02:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- People should read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Proposed decision and decide for themselves what it means as relates to the issue at hand. WAS 4.250 03:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 10 | 5 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm familiar with it. What are you trying to say? Mangojuicetalk 23:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- It seemed to me that you did not know of it. Your contribution to WP:COI seemed very confused and I thought not knowing about OWN might be the reason. WAS 4.250 06:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Did you read my comments on the talk page? Some people (established editors, even) have been saying others have a "conflict of interest" and referring to WP:COI when in fact they are just established editors of an article, making arguments that serve them as editors. Hence, the distinction. I don't think that kind of argument is an ownership issue. Mangojuicetalk 13:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I read your comments on the talk page and I found them very unclear also. Your above comment is clear but I fail to see it as a sufficient justification for an addition to the COI policy. The usual thing to do in a case like the one you describe above is to ask for clarification on the policy talk page. And a frequent response is for someone else to assert that the first person has mischaracterized the situation. The discussion belongs on the talk page and if it turns out that something is actually be missing from the policy (we try not to add common sense implications to the policies) then it can be added in the wake of the discussion. WAS 4.250 19:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Your note about credentials
Would it work, do you think, instead of all the verification of credentials stuff? I've posted on WT:ATT and on the Jimbo credentials talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- My overall impression is that it is good idea. It expresses the foundation head's idea (as well as many others) that wikipedia is better off just getting rid of all such claims unless the user wishes to prove it themselves. In that it is similar to my BLP idea yet it is distinctively different in several ways. I don't know which is the better idea, but I think either is a good first step that could gain concensus. Some of the other ideas expressed (see the see also section) could be implemented jointly. Probably the BLP or the ATT idea (but not both) should be combined with the checkuser identity policy idea and the arbcom accountability idea (they develop their own accountabilty standards at their own speed - but they at least start down that path) in the best scenerio; but it all depends on what the community wants in the end. WAS 4.250 02:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think "If not published, the source material must be provided by a trusted source such as a university; for example, a degree certificate from an accredited body uploaded onto the site" is workable as the community is not equipped to deal with fraud of even the simplest kind as witness Essjay's absurd claims. An employee at a university, a bribe to an an employee at a university, a diploma mill, faking that you are a university, etc. WAS 4.250 02:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is a need to define "third party" and why that term is used. Is Wikimedia or the accrediting agency the second party? Also, suppose the wikimedia foundation as part of verifying a checkuser also verifies a Phd as well as an identity? Perhaps such a person could remain known to the office but not to the public as to identity, yet be able to say "phd in physics" for example? WAS 4.250 02:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I wonder about limiting to "professional expertise or academic qualification" rather than leting the community evolve its own idea of what claims should be sourced or deleted. Con(fidence) artists are endlessly inventive and can find any number of things to lie about to influence public opinion of themselves to raise their community standing and affect acceptance of their editorial evaluations. Even edit-counts is being used by people using automated scripts to make tiny changes to get high edit-counts. I prefer flexibility and guidance while you like to lock things down - I guess what counts here is what the community takes a liking to. WAS 4.250 02:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 11 | 12 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Instead of moving the page, I felt it better to get further discussion so I've listed it as proposed move and in the Village Pump. You may want to reaffirm your view in the informal poll Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Requested move just for clarity. Cheers Nil Einne 16:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 12 | 20 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream" | News and notes: Bad sin, milestones |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Your note
Don't worry about it. You have very good people skills, among the best around here, in fact. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words. WAS 4.250 22:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear WAS 4.250
I wanted to email you this, but I'll do it here. I'm sorry. I should never, in a million years, have called you such outrageous names. Whenever I edit Wikipedia now it is with considerable embarassment. Feel free to delete this, but I wanted you to read it. I was upset at what I viewed as condescencion (plus I was editing after both working all day and drinking a few beers, so my mindset was off). So although I've told other users that I stand by what I said, I only stand by the initial idea of not being condescended to, the words I used were inexcusable in any situation. I'm not a bad person, and I was acting out of character. So again, I'm exteremely sorry. No response necessary. Take care. --Tractorkingsfan 03:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I suspected as much at the time. I forgive you totally. I hope you are also successful at dealing with others with regard to this. Please be aware that the real lesson for you is that you have to live with yourself for the rest of your life, so be someone you would like to spend the rest of your life with. I think you are well on the way there. Good luck with being the type of person you would be proud to be. I think you'll make it. Hell, I know you will. WAS 4.250 06:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Response
I was busy for sometime. But now I ahve responded to your comments on Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Criticism_and_overwhelming_clause. Please respond back there.Bless sins 19:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 13 | 26 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I have a few positions open. If you know a lot about technology, particularly MediaWiki, you might be interested in writing our technology report, which can be compiled from the MediaWiki commit log. If you're interested in press coverage about Wikipedia, you can help with our In the news section. What I'd really like are a few people to cover special stories, like the story I wrote this week about Danny and Brad's resignations. If anything appeals to you in particular, let me know, and I'll give you more information. If you're still not sure, let me know, and I can give you an idea of what I'm looking for. Thanks so much for volunteering. Ral315 » 05:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
ATT/bias stuff
Thanks for dropping by at Talk:Rosa Luz Alegría. I've said this there: - Yes. But... personally I'm not comfortable with the wider systemic consequences if we're not thinking about what we're doing - almost as Shakespeare said. With potentially good articles I'm inclined to eventualism and finding a way that serves WP:NPOV just as much as WP:ATT. I'm intending to wait a few days here because I've asked a translator for input and I've left a suggestion at BLP talk about handling unsourced statements where they are significant for the balance of the article. VSerrata 07:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC) --VSerrata 07:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Criticism/Praise of Islam
I'll take your advice and work on such an article. Thank you for the advice and the show of support. Coldbud 04:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 14 | 2 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Praise of Islam
Hi WAS 4.250; I just blocked User:Coldbud as a sock of User:His excellency. If you want to work on that page, it might be better to move it to your userspace. Cheers, Tom Harrison Talk 18:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Was this you?
Hi. Did you make this edit? If so you might want to log on and make it again. If not I will strike it out. Best wishes, --Guinnog 17:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it was me. When I log on I'll confirm it. WAS 4.250 4.250.177.200 17:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, and sorry to trouble you.--Guinnog 18:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 15 | 9 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Tidbits
Before you spoke about the Essjay letter tidbit. I would like your comments on this subject. Further, you stated on the talk page your views about the co-founder issue. I would appreciate your collaboration on this matter. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- The Essjay letter should be in the article in some way, but exactly how is up to consensus. Larry is a cofounder, but that is not something worth fighting over with regard to the essjay article. Have you evaluated what you want in life and what might be effective means towards that end? WAS 4.250 21:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, Wikipedia has been a great help to me in life. I have learned a lot from the community and reading articles. I was editing less and less on Wikipedia. Then I saw an editor remove a picture without gaining consensus first. That sparked my interest. Otherwise, I could already be retired or on a break. I am neutral on the wording of the letter tidbit. The refs for the letter are in the article. The refs are verifiable. After the 'letter' and the 'co-founder refs' are put back in the article I will then make a decision on taking a very long long break. I do not understand the behaviour of the other editors. The letter claim is a fact and the a founder or co-founder is another fact. I suggest we work together to put the letter info in the article. I hope you would be willing to comment on the talk page about the letter. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 03:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm glad to hear that Wikipedia has been a great help to you in life. I have also benefited from the time I have spent here. Wikipedia needs to evolve further though. The efforts underway to sometime soon, probably this year, implement some form of stable versioning system encourages me to believe that this further evolution will occur. Every month I edit a little less myself. It is normal and natural to move on to other things...
- Perhaps the other editors are still emotionally tied to Essjay or perhaps they emotionally feel Wikipedia is threatened by anything that makes Essjay look even worse. In any case, nothing here is decided forever, so any effort to add or remove the letter can be undone at any time in the future. Efforts to make final edits in wikipedia is like trying to plow the ocean - futile. So rather than fighting hard for what after the victory can easily be reverted, why not wait until the emotions die down and the combatants find new battles to engage their attentions? Come back in a few months and then we can see what we can do. Meanwhile, put versions you wish to retain access to on your user page and then revert it so the version is not live but exists in history for retrieval at anytime. WAS 4.250 10:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion. However, my user page was AFDed. The info is easily retrieval anyways. Currently, there is support for the Essjay letter claim. Read the talk page. The arguements for not including are problably emotional as you suggested. And the arguements for including it are valid. Since there is already enough support for inclusion, I recommend you give your two cents. Simple enough. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 19:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Relevant material from "WP:RS" removed?
I see you quoted that "It is prohibited to remove relevant material sourced to reliable sources because you have done some original research and decided the reliable source is actually wrong."
Can I ask where it was you saw that stated? I've noticed many cases where relevant material from reliable sources has been reverted - if you've quoted WP policy, then that statement needs wider publication. PalestineRemembered 19:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Can you refresh my memory? I can't recall making that statement. And actually, standing alone without context, I disagree with it. WAS 4.250 19:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Warning
Do not edit other editors' user pages. Please do not engage in disruptive WP:POINT edits. If you have a problem with something on my user page, you should leave a note on my talk page and not just peremptorily edit without an explanation as per WP:UP. --Mantanmoreland 12:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)