User talk:Duk/Archive12

Possibly unfree Image:Bolted joint.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bolted joint.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abcdefghayden 03:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wikipedia Editors by Edit Count

User Duk,

I do realize that this message may be 'tilting at windmills' but I feel it needs to be said.

In the 'edit count war,' the anti-counters have given NO GROUND WHATSOEVER while the pro-counters have repeatedly attempted to compromise and mediate disputes. What I DO find extremely lame is the objection to the use of 'placeholder' or 'anonymous.'

Now, it could be said that since:

A. Wikipedia is free B. Wikipedia is OPEN to the public C. Editors who sign up and contribute do so VOLUNTARILY D. That, in fact, anyone's 'edit count' is public record

That the making of a list with everyone's name on it is, in fact, within the principles of Wikipedia.

Now, I DO realize that, humanly speaking, the media and others can be obnoxious in the over-assertion of 'rights' to 'free' and 'public' information. From following Princess Diana around to publishing lists of the '400 richest Americans', it can be quite tiresome for some who don't want every detail of their life publicly displayed.

And I, and a lot of other Wikipedians, are O.K. with that.

That's why the proposal for 'anonymous' or 'placeholder' was made. It SEEMED a valid compromise. The user, who objects, would no longer be identifiable (in fact, the irony is that those who ostensibly object to being identified have no problem publicly signing their messages on the 'comments' page). User 'Durin' claims to be retired, but such is a ruse; he continues to participate in Wikipedia. The anti-placeholder crowd has been inconsiderate, rude, and unable to understand a key principle here: the 'placeholder' is NOT about the person's identity or name...it's about list integrity. I don't want to be #2916 when my real rank is #2936. If users like 'Durin' who ostensibly don't want to be publicly identified, but go to great lengths to make sure everyone knows who they are, don't want their User ID on the list, fine. 'Placeholder' gives them NO credit and, further, if one were to compare their own edit count to 'placeholder', it would be comparing 'apples' to 'fruit X'. We could 'weigh' both fruits and determine that 'fruit X' weighs more, but we still wouldn't know what it was. However, the comparison remains for the apple.

In the Wikipedia example, if the list exists with 'placeholders' then those who choose to use the list will be satisfied (the list is accurate and knowledgeable) and those who choose anonymity SHOULD be satisfied...they don't have to visit the page and no one else will see their name if they don't. It's like the saying: If you don't want to see the movie, don't go.

Now, suppose we made a hand-made list that manually adjusted the ranks of those users who wished to be listed, but gave their 'correct' rankings? Would that make everyone happy? Hey, it's not YOUR name, it's not YOUR rank.

But what's the purpose of doing something manually when a computer can do it instead? The computer, though, calculates the ranking based on the entries, so a 'placeholder' is needed to ensure the rankings are auto-calculated correctly. So why not add in a 'placeholder'? What if we called it 'human-bot'? Would that make it better?

If, on the other hand, one insists on the deletion of not only one's User ID but also a 'placeholder', then the list becomes just as distorted as if I added the computerized bots back in. It affects everyone on the list below one's ranking. Such a deletion is therefore unfair.

Why did the latest 'edit-war' erupt again? Because the first 'war' was not concluded in a fair and equitable manner. One side attempted compromise and mediation, the other side demanded EVERYTHING and plus add a 'stick it in the eye' disclaimer of 'do not revert' which, in fact, is itself in violation of Wiki policy, which calls for CONSENSUS WP:CCC and also differs from the spirit of WP:NPOV which states:

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."[1]

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views

Now, I realize this isn't an 'article' page, but surely it isn't too much to ask to have Wikipedia editors follow the principles of Wikipedia in their edits. Using terms such as 'lame', 'meaningless,' etc hardly qualify as proper attempts to reach or achieve consensus or otherwise.

Thus, this problem will continue until two things occur:

A. A compromise, neutral, consensus view emerges. Since the pro-list camp has already given ground, it really is the other side's turn.

Or:

B. Get a decree from some top person

Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for server load or legal issues (copyright, privacy rights, and libel) have policy status (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#How are policies started?).

That makes a decision.

Again, it can be legally argued that use of 'anonymous' or 'placeholder' NO LONGER identifies that person, such as a police report blotting out a person's name. Legally, that person and the edit count are no longer identified as one; they should not have control over that information.

Is that too much to ask?Ryoung122 06:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ryoung122, everything I have to say on this I've said on the talk page. Sorry I can't be more helpful. --Duk 16:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WSI

Sound familar ? :

RE: WSI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#solution

Only difference is the anon has an ID. Travb (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop screeching you fingernails across the chalkboard ;) --Duk 19:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look into this?

Thanks for seeing through Husond's attempts "to silence another editor with views different than your own".[1]

I'd say it is the height of incivility to make an attack against me like that, without even notifying me that he was doing so. Especially when he does it while he knows that I am blcoked and cannot respond.

Husond is perfectly willing to accept the idea that spellings can differ between, say, Spanish and Portuguese. it is only the English language which he gives no respect, engaging in edit warring to not only keep English names out of the article names, but from the text of the articles themselves which do not have the same limitation of one available slot.

But there's something else I'd like you to take a look at, something not involving me (I don't think I've ever edited the article involved in any way).

Look into Husond's actions at Galicia (Spain). Husond has engaged in edit-warring there over his insistence on including the Portuguese spelling "Galiza" in the article. Its official name Galicia in both the Spanish and the Galician languages (that's the English name as well, but I doubt that that ever entered into Husond's consideration in any way).

27 Apr 2007 13:47 UTC: The edit warring started when Husond reverted[2] infobox corrections by User:81.2.108.194 (talk page); in the next edit of the article, Husond added bold name to intro (13:48 UTC).
15 May 2007 12:08 UTC: 81.2.108.194 made similar changes.[3]
15 May 2007 14:11 UTC: Husond reverted.[4]
15 May 2007 14:12 UTC: Husond accused the editor of vandalism at his/her talk page User talk:81.2.108.194.[5]
16 May 2007 13:08 UTC, User:81.2.108.194 went to Husond's talk page and explained his position.[6] Even if Husond might not have made any culpable error when he earlier jumped to the conclusion that it was mere vandalism, he was now aware that it was not. It was a good faith edit.
16 May 2007 16:11 UTC: Husond accused 81.2.108.194 of incivility.[7] and added ""Galiza" is a term frequently used by many Galician speakers, regardless of it being a nationalistic term or not."
- Just go back and look post to Husond's talk by 81.2.108.194.[8] Where's the incivility?
29 May 2007 12:33 UTC User:81.2.108.194 again removes the non-English, non-Spanish, non-Galician term, the Portuguese name for a place not in Portugal, from the article.[9]
29 May 2007 13:49 UTC Husond reverts.[10]
29 May 2007 13:51 UTC Husond posts another message at User talk:81.2.108.194[11]
- Husond again accuses 81.2.108.194 of vandalism, though by then Husond knows quite well that it is not vandalism, so it is a disingenuous accusation.
- Furthermore, Husond threatens to block 81.2.108.194 for this, in what was actually a content dispute in which Husond himself was the primary edit-warrior. (Much like his tag-team partner--when I reverted several undiscussed, unreferenced page moves by Darwinek, Husond reverted them, not on the merits but because I did it--once did with me, except Darwinek actually blocked me. BTW, I noticed that Darwinek has now gotten his sysop status back again, too; something apparently done out of the sunshine, on an ArbCom mailing list discussion.)

That 29 May posting by 81.2.108.194 was the last edit by that user. Don't know if he/she was just driven off by Husond's repeated attacks, or just went and got a user name. User:81.2.108.194 was never blocked by anyone, just threatened with it by Husond.

That strikes me as a highly improper abuse of admin powers. Am I overreacting, just because of the way Husond has acted in so many other cases that I have been involved with? Gene Nygaard 15:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gene, I think the best course is for you to avoid Husond and let everything settle down.

That strikes me as a highly improper abuse of admin powers. Am I overreacting - I've read all your links and find them disturbing. No, I don't think you are overreacting. But that was several months ago, and none of us are perfect. Thank you for the note. --Duk 19:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Quick question

There is no set convention for general articles. WP:TLS uses GMT, but that only applies to TLS articles. If, for example, you are querying the use of 10 November in the List of Delta IV launches article, there is no convention. I have been pushing for GMT/UTC to be standardised, as it is not affected by reigonal variations, but so far this has been fruitless. It varies from article to article. Best practice would be to list both, or mention the time, eg "11 November, 01:39-03:42 GMT (10 November, 8:39-10:42 EST)", or "10 November, 8:39-10:42 EST (11 November, 01:39-03:42 GMT)" depending on context. If you ask me, the system is a mess. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the info.--Persianhistory2008 11:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my rfa

If you voted in my RFA...

...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.

Thank you again and, best regards. VanTucky ^Talk

This RFA thanks was inspired by Lara❤Love's

Owned?

This page is clear. Please, rollback yourself. :) --Tooby 00:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

let me guess, you didn't read the talk page as suggested in the edit summary. --Duk 00:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did. However, the page I linked is stronger then a "chatter". Channels are absolutely not owned by WMF. --Tooby 00:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tooby is right, please do not revert. -- John Reaves 01:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the The Godfather II. Did you see that movie? There was a wonderful scene where mob thugs were ratting out Michael Corleone to a congressional committee. There was no proof that Michael was actually the mob boss because he had lots of "buffers", as the ratting buffers explained. OK, so you say the foundation doesn't "own" wikipedia-en-admins and James Forrester doesn't know what he's talking about. Nevertheless, all freenod irc channels with Wikipedia in the title are under the control of the ~~buffers~~ Liasons. Tell me, who do these liaisons answer to? --Duk 01:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 20 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chemical Automatics Design Bureau, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 08:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes

Have a great thanksgiving too. Just got back from the movie The Mist. Great non-American ending. Reminded me of Lord of the Flies but it will never be a classic. Travb (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vector (spatial)

You added the parallelogram law into the first sentence of the article, with the comment:

"lots of quantities have magnitude and direction, but they are vectors only if they sum according to the Parallelogram law"

I'm a bit confused by this. My understanding was that first some entity is defined, and it is or isn't a vector based on whether it has a direction (which must transform correctly under a coordinate rotation) and a magnitude. Then, you define addition according to the parallelogram law, and this definition might or might not be a useful concept. For example, I could have a steel beam, and define a vector with magnitude equal to the length of the steel beam, and direction parallel to where one of the ends is pointing. I can think of plenty of authoritative sources (at least in the physics literature) that would define this to be a vector, but I can't imagine why you would want to add such things, or if you did, how you would decide whether or not they "sum according to the parallelogram law".

Also, could you offer an example of something with a magnitude and a direction, but which isn't a vector? --Steve (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, stress has magnitude and orientation but it's not a vector.
I think your steel beam analogy does in fact satisfy the parallelogram law (weld beam two onto the end of beam one and the parallelogram law is satisfied.)
I was taught that the simplest definition of a vector was something that summed according to the parallelogram law. If that's true, then all the other mathematical properties associated with vectors will follow. This was a long time ago, I'm guessing before you were born :) Just looking in my CRC standard math tables book here: it defines a vector as something that has "magnitude and orientation" but doesn't specifically state the parallelogram criteria, instead it just goes right into the vector algebra. So I don't have a source - go ahead and revert me if you like.

Happy holidays! --Duk 02:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GPR56

Hi, the above article per the discussion here contains (or should contain) the following acknowledgment/disclaimer:
"{{NLM content}}"
and therefore is not a copyright violation. I would appreciate if you would restore the article. Cheers. Boghog2 22:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opps, sorry. I just noticed the date (14 April 2005) of the deletion of the article. I thought that you had deleted an article recently created by User:ProteinBoxBot, but obviously it was an article created by someone else some time ago. Never mind. Cheers. Boghog2 23:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page vandalism

What was the purpose of this edit? *Dan T.* (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I'd have caught that when you did it, you'd have been blocked now - consider this a warning. That edit is completely unbefitting of an administrator. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Dan: I thought my edit was crystal clear. If you don't understand the purpose, I'm not sure my explaining it to you will do any good. But since you ask, here it goes. The purpose of that edit was to point out that you did a really sleazy thing, and then spun the story 180°, painting yourself as the victim in a self-righteous fashion on your userpage because someone noticed you doing a really sleazy thing. It's pretty amazing, when you think about it.

Since you seem to have trouble understanding this, let me explain again. I was pointing out that you did a sleazy thing, got noticed, and are now whining that you were wronged by being noticed. That's really stupid, Dan.

All clear? --Duk 02:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The place to try to explain things to me is my talk page, not my user page; inserting comments where I seem to be calling myself names is entirely unacceptable. I reserve the right to call myself an asshole if and when I choose to do so; nobody else should try to put the words in my mouth. And, for your information, Merkey's inclusion of me in his "list of cyberstalkers" preceded by a long time my comments that you noted; if there was any cause and effect involved it was in the opposite direction from what you implied. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Ryan Postlethwaite: you are completely right. I will try not to address these incredibly obnoxious things in kind anymore. --Duk 02:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duk, what was this edit? Lawrence Cohen 21:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which was successful with a vote of 33/7/4.

Special thanks go to Epbr123 for nominating me and Pedro for the offer of help.

I am honoured by the trust placed in me by the community. I hope to repay this by the wise use of the tools, which I intend to use gradually. Mop & bucket is on the Christmas list - honest. Keith D (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bolan Medical College

You deleted Bolan Medical College on 19 April 2005 because it was a copyvio|url=http://www.nts.org.pk/bolan/bolan.htm. I've recreated the page as part of WP:UNI; feel free to comment if you have a view on the page or its contents. Thanks! Natebailey (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]