User talk:Wer900

DYK for KOI-872

Yngvadottir (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback

It does! Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your feedback and thank you for your contributions!

Cheers,
Riley Huntley (talk) No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 03:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

 

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Wer900, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! heather walls (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

talk · Council of Wikipedia

essay on the definition of consensus

Improved coordination

I find your ideas regarding this subject fascinating, and hope that you do not continue to be met with the typical resistance to this form of change. Good luck, and keep up the good work. dci | TALK 03:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I give my utmost thanks to your support of my ideas. The aid of individuals like you is what allows ideas which move this encyclopedia—and civilization itself—to be implemented and to allow them to work their wonders. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 03:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems that you're not getting much support over at the RfC, but what do you think of this idea: an RfC on where we are as an encyclopedia and as a community, where all would be invited to discuss their views on community-wide problems, area-specific problems, and potential solutions. This would not last indefinitely, and would be a way to reflect and also to revitalize the many useful areas of Wikipedia that have, regrettably, fallen silent in the past few years. This discussion could be started with a few basic questions and room for discussion under the questions, and then the discussion could go wherever participants may take it. dci | TALK 16:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Trout Slap Replica

As the sole supporter of your proposal to improve Wikipedia co-ordination, allow me to pre-emprively apply the proposed trout-slap. More gently, surely, than if by an opponent. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Your sig

I noticed you've done something to your sig that, for some reason, disrupts the flow of this discussion. I don't know why, have you added a line break or something like that? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Page move

Wer900 moved page Talk:Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact to Talk:Implications of extraterrestrial contact: Implementing peer review recommendations

The only problem is, that is not what the peer review recommended. The peer review suggested "Impact of extraterrestrial contact" based on an unsourced sentence in the lead section. The reviewer is probably not aware that the subject of such impact is best covered under the cultural impact title based on the sources. In any case, you moved the article to "Implications of extraterrestrial contact" which is not what the reviewer suggested or recommended. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Culture is typically associated with art, music, food, etc. Not necessarily science and technology, so I changed the title to encompass the subjects contained within more completely. Yes, the vast majority is dedicated to "cultural" impacts but there are topics which do not typically have "cultural" associations. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 22:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That is not true. Western culture, as an example, refers "to a heritage of social norms, ethical values, traditional customs, religious beliefs, political systems, and specific artifacts and technologies." It isn't that these things don't have cultural associations; they are a part of our dominant culture. Contact with a hypothetical ET culture would impact our culture, which is what the topic is about, and this is why the cultural term is so important. Deleting "culture" and changing it to "implications" tells me have a fundamental communication problem here. Furthermore, the suggestion of the peer reviewer was made based on an unsourced statement in the lead section, not on the sources themselves, the majority of which discuss this topic in terms of a cultural impact. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

We'll need an admin to reverse the move. I'll make a request at WP:Requested moves. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 22:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No, we don't need an admin to reverse the move. I reverted it. I'm concerned that you are falling back into the previous arguments you made in March, when you said "this only documents the implications that an actual visit by extraterrestrials may have for humanity". We've previously discussed the issues with the title, and now it seems like you are ignoring those discussions and changing it back to another disputed title. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Good. Then I can remove the RM. I didn't remember the discussion by the way. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 22:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

My point is, the current topic is about "the potential impact that contact with a highly advanced intelligence will have on human civilization." This impact is generally referred to as cultural impact by the sources. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Source access

Please make a list of the sources you don't have access to, and I will make an attempt to help you gain access. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources cited within the article

Harrison, Albert A. (2002). After Contact: The Human Response To Extraterrestrial Life. Basic Books. ISBN 9780738208466.

Michaud, Michael A. G. (2006). Contact with Alien Civilizations: Our Hopes and Fears about Encountering Extraterrestrials. New York, New York, United States: Copernicus Books. ISBN 978-0-387-28598-6.

Kaufman, Marc (2012). First Contact: Scientific Breakthroughs in the Hunt for Life Beyond Earth. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-4391-0901-4. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help)

Finney, Ben (1990). "The impact of contact". Acta Astronautica. 21 (2): 117. doi:10.1016/0094-5765(90)90137-A.(subscription required)

Sources not cited within the article

. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-68618-9_21. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

Pretty much everything in this Google Scholar search for "cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact" which is related to the subject but not cited in the article

Information related to the subject found here

Relevant information found here

Relevant information found here

I'll update when I find more sources. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 02:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I will address this when I'm at home in a few hours. First, may I ask, why are you using sources in the current article that you don't have access to? Are you using them because you found them in other sources (as cited in)? I'm a bit confused. Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have access to brief excerpts and abstracts, but nothing more. They provide some information but not the comprehensive work one is looking for (e.g. "The impact of contact," Finney [2000]. That's why they were cited, but much more information could be gained had I possessed the full work. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 15:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't know, Finney's 1990 work has been probably superseded by his more recent work, and many of the popular books you've listed above repeat already published information. For what it is worth, I believe there is an editor on the WP:RX who has access to the Elsevier catalog, and I think this includes Acta Astronautica. I'll file a request in a few hours. I'm not sure how you're going about doing research, but when I do it, I start with the most notable works and authors in the field. For example, can you point to major authors and works on this subject, as noted by the sources themselves? Have you made a list of them? Do you have access to these works? I would start with answering those questions first. I can help construct this list as well. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Here are the major authors on the subject, this list is not intended to be exhaustive:

• Tarter, Shostak et al.
• Dr. Allen Tough (d. 2012)
• Ben Finney
• Dominik Martin
• Kathryn Denning
• M. A. G Michaud
• Albert A. Harrison
• Robert Freitas

Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 03:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A link to the Finney journal article has been uploaded to the RX board. Go to my talk page and click on the talkback link. The uploader has provided images of the journal article for download. You will need to save them to your device/machine. Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the link was bad. Here is the correct link: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Elsevier Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Download PDF Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for getting this to me. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 16:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Authority Control Integration

Hi, I've been researching the intersection of Wikipedia and Authority Control, and have just recently made a Village Pump Proposal to create a bot to expand the usage of a template. I've identified you as someone in the sphere of interest to this project and would appreciate your input at the Village Pump. Thanks, Maximiliankleinoclc (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

smacking you with multiple fish

For your apparent inability to take "no" for an answer after two rapid snowball rejections of your ideas, I hereby award you this rare triple trout with bracketing minnows

Plip!

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Plip!

Now please, take off the costume and come down off the roof. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

That was not my aim. There was only one rejection, and I'm sure you didn't read a word beyond the title and slapped the trouts. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 03:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I read your proposal. It was different in the details but you have again missed the point that Wikipedia does not have, nor does it desire to have, an elected government. The underlying concept runs against the philosophical underpinnings of this project and the idea of consensus based decision making. Changing the details of how the government is selected pr what their responsibilities and authorities are will not change the fact that the entire concept is incompatible with how Wikipedia works. I suggest you find a mre constructive way to spend your time. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

So your closure was politically motivated? I don't think that my proposal counted as vandalism or misconduct. By the way, I intend consensus-based decision-making to be the main driving force of the project, with this elected government only dealing with large-scale issues where the community has, time after time, failed to organize itself. That is the reason we have the Arbitration Committee, and it only makes sense to fill the huge power vacuum which exists because there is no legislative/executive counterpart to the ArbCom. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 16:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A few points:

• I didn't close the discussion and don't know why you think I did, but I have suggested that you withdraw it and I have asked for an uninvolved party to close it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure
• We don't have "politics" here so I don't know what you mean by that accusation
• The arbitration commitee exists to help resolve intractible disputes. It is not the judicial branch of an otherwise non-existent government, that's just what you imagine it to be despite the community telling you, repeatedly and in strong terms, that you are incorrect and we do not need or desire a formal governmental structure. See WP:DEM and WP:NOTBURO.
• Now please let it go already. Your idea has been strongly rejected. If you re-present it again anytime soon it is extremely likely that you will face some sorrt of topic ban or sanction per WP:POINT. This is an encyclopedia. Once again I suggest you focus on that until such time as the "existential awakening" you seem to think is coming actually occurs. I'm sure you have much of value to offer this project, but you need to accept that this idea is not compatible with how things work here and will not be implemented no matter how many times you alter the details and re-present it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

AfD Nominations

Hi, I removed your AfD nomination from Shri M.D. Shah Mahila College of Arts and Commerce as you have still not completed the nomination process. Please see WP:AfD for a full run down on how to nominate an article for deletion. Feel free to renominate the article when your ready to complete the process. Monty₈₄₅ 00:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)