User talk:K/Archive 2

Peirce

As far as I can tell it's currently on your last version, but I don't really know enough to be sure, I'm not familiar with the content. Jayjg (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of pseudoscience in Scientific data archiving

Kenosis, you agreed on the Pseudoscience Talk page that data withholding is a practice that cannot be called science - "no wizards behind the curtain." However, you went to the Scientific data archiving article and deleted the comment about Pseudoscience saying that there is no equivalence. I agree that the two are not equivalent. Data withholding is only one example of a practice that must be described as pseudoscience. Presenting and making fraudulent data (in the belief it will never be tested) is also pseudoscience. Because the term pseudoscience is often used to describe a field like "astrology," some people think that it can only be applied to fields. This is not true as the Pseudoscience article points out in the first sentence. Since we both agree that data withholding and pseudoscience are not equivalent and we both agree that data withholding is not science but pseudoscience, can you help me to find a way to explain to readers that the practice of data withholding is pseudoscience without making it sound like it is equivalent? Thanks!RonCram 14:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Data withholding is one thing; failure to archive all data points is another. ... Kenosis 03:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The article never claimed failure to archive was the same as data withholding. I have tried to clarify the Intro. William reverted in less time than it would take to read it. In fact, I was not even done with the formatting. The best version of the article IMHO, can be found here.[1] Please take a look.RonCram 13:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design

It should probably be clear why I archived the old vote now. Needed to so I could put in the new, hopefully more consensus-building vote structure.

I kind of feel responsible for making sure things move forwards, given I protected the page, and I'm the one who foolishly unprotected it last time causing all the discussion that was going on to suddenly die off. Adam Cuerden talk 05:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick questions... My thought was that Abstain meant that no specific judgment was made. Perhaps I should remove the others as well... thoughts? Morphh (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

PIE

Á la mode. ;)

Cherry ice cream

&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, but where's the PIE? ... Kenosis 21:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice work!

 The Editor's Barnstar For tireless, and truly excellent work in doing what I could not: Getting the Intelligent design lead into a well-written state worthy of the rest of the article, I award you this Editor's Barnstar. Adam Cuerden talk 21:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Multiverses

RE Kenosis' statement:

• But, we can't observe any other universes so as to develop a genuine statistical analysis of it, such as to be able to say, for instance. "in universe X the balance is 1-in-1050, only one "${\displaystyle \sigma }$ " (one "sigma", or "standard deviation") from the average or expected value of the sample taken in this study of various universes, and look how it collapsed". Like it or not, we only have a sample of 1 (which is the only universe we presently know of).
So what about the multiverse theory? I have seen studies of a distribution of universes? Do you feel it is invalid? ProtoCat 12:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Like it or not, we can't seem to find 'em to double check any of the other theorized universes, to date at least. Heck, to date we seem fairly overwhelmed by the vastness of the one we know of, the one that gave rise to us. Empirical study of it should keep us busy for awhile, I'd think. ...

Not that I mind folks theorizing or speculating about it. But, we already know we're on a relatively moderate-size planet in a relatively moderate-size solar system (not a dwarf, not a giant), not too hot, not too cold on the average (kinda like the three bears story, though I suppose global warming may change my mind about this in due time), etc. Point being, quibble as one might, conditions necessary for life were and are present on Earth. But to date, we have no way of developing an emprirically verifiable statistical analysis of what the probabilities are against this occurring"randomly", or "by accident" (read that: "without guidance or intentionality of some kind"), because it's the only universe we know of. This longstanding conceptual problem appears, in part at least, to motivate some of the discussions about other hypothetical universes.

Given a sufficiently diverse universe within certain paramaters not all of which are identified to date, Earth turns out to be a "hit" so to speak, and "poof", here we are (well, not exactly "poof", of course, as it's taken some four billion years to get from the primordial soup to the present form of things). So it doesn't bother me to see speculation that essentially hypothesizes "if enough universes exist, one or more of them, within a speculated range of specific parameters, might give rise to sustained self-replicating, evolving life." We still end up thinking in terms of a range of parameters. But I think we're actually somewhat behind the learning curve as to just how difficult it is to visualize. As Stephen Hawking said, asking what happened before the Big Bang is rather like asking what lies north of the North Pole. Similarly, asking what lies beyond the singularity runs into this difficulty. ... Kenosis 15:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

ProtoCat

I don't want to cause a newbie problems because of their initial foolishness. Though I'm not sure, from ProtoCat's response, if they actually agree that there's foolishness to hide. Think they're foreign?

This message is brought to you by the gender-neutral singular "they". Because nothing else works!(tm) Adam Cuerden talk 19:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, god. I just looked at their talk page. They asked me for my opinion on what they were doing... Okay, this gender-neutral they is getting over-the top itself. *flips coin* Tails. She asked my opinion on what she was doing wrong, so I told her, then she accuses me of being foreign and having no reading comprehension skill. Time to stop feeding the troll, I think. Adam Cuerden talk 19:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This is turning into a bit of a train wreck. For the record I have no problem with anyone striking any Talk or User Talk comments in an effort to move on without animosity. SheffieldSteel 20:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Gender-neutral_pronoun#Neologisms :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
That is hilarious. I think I'll stick with (s)he and her/him, despite fear of the Linguistics Enforcment Department (LED) forbidding the use of the slash. .... Kenosis 23:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The troll was recently banned for being the fourth sockpuppet incarnation of VacuousPoet. Just watch the style and pattern of edits. A fifth sockpuppet will show up in a couple of weeks. Orangemarlin 06:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

ID

If you want that information second thing in the article, then we have to move thing s around so we don't repeat things. I've rearranged paragraphs as best I may to try and get it there. It's not a perfect flow, but then, it's no worse than the old version in that respect. ---- 16:35, 19 May 2007 Adam Cuerden

I disagree with harping on the DI's main talking point, which they'd just love people to believe, repeatedly and without appropriate bringing in of the other views. It's like free advertising for them. Anyway, the way you were doing it doesn't work very well - them claiming it's a scientific theory has very little to do with it being the teleological argument. You could possibly attach it to the first sentence, but the first sentence is supposed to be able to stand alone according to guidelines, and it's dodgy enough already with its almost pro-DI content. Adam Cuerden talk 19:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, but I'd think it has the potential to concisely express the contradiction in one sentence: Claimed to be a scientific theory but actually a teleological argument. Anyway, no sweat about it. ... Kenosis 19:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's a good idea, but I'm not really sure that most readers could identify the teleological argument as not being science without some prompting. After all, creation science wasn't dropped because the public didn't like it. Adam Cuerden talk 19:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I just feel I have to elabourately defend anything I do on ID of late, because if I don't I have Jim throuwing all sorts of personal attacks at me. And then, if I do try to defend it, he throws attacks at me. Can't win with that fellow. Has he actually done any work on the ID article besides a lot of reverting? Adam Cuerden talk 21:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

He's fixed a good deal of godawful syntax, grammar and linguistic usage, including some gaffes of my own. He doesn't hesitate to correct me if he thinks he sees a need. Thrown some barbs at me on occasion too; occasionally I'll throw one at him-- we still get along quite OK. ... Kenosis 22:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, well. I shouldn't be annoyed. He just seemed to be sniping anything I did for a while in rather nasty language. I think it's blown over now. Adam Cuerden talk 06:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design

You know, Dembski keeps highlighting those poor souls on Wikipedia, banned, just because they support ID.

...One wonders if we aren't getting creationist trolls hoping to be martyrs for the cause. Adam Cuerden talk 23:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've yet to hear of any user that was banned for supporting ID. AFAIK, several have been banned for incessantly violating the WP rules. The ID article makes no judgments about ID. It explains the topic and reports what the reliable sources have to say about it, in keeping with the rules of WP. If some people can't tolerate that, well-- I don't think there's anything I can say that would help the situation of those persons. ... Kenosis 23:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, of course "just because they suppot ID" means constant injection of POV, personal attacks on evolutionists, etc, etc. But there were a few recent examples of twisting bans into that sort of propaganda. Adam Cuerden talk 06:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
No doubt. Incidentally, on a personal note, hope you've gotten rested up and are feeling chipper again. ... Kenosis 12:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, more or less. Certainly, I've been getting some things done, which is a start, and am getting out a lot. Sleeping more than I should, though. Adam Cuerden talk 15:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

ID reversion

Fair enough, but I thought the third paragraph had changed into the history of ID, not just the legal standing? Anyway, worth an experiment to see how hard it was to make work. Adam Cuerden talk 16:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

NP Adam. I appreciate the explanation. Take care for now. ... Kenosis 16:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the results seem to be "probably doable, but harder than it looks". It'd take a fair bit of editing to really make the "associtated with" section fit in smoothly, and the returns for it are.... probably not that great. Slightly stronger language in the first paragraph in exchange for a slightly weaker third. Let's leave it for now. Adam Cuerden talk 16:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Myth hypothesis

Dear Kenosis, could you please have a look at my reply at the section Redundancy. I believe the wrangling around Josephus is a big misunderstanding. Maybe you agree. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 17:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we're close to a solution there. I left a couple of relevant comments on the talk page. I still, though, would like to see some form of a little summary paragraph referencing Josephus, Tacitus and Seutonius, such as the one you've said is redundant but perhaps phrased in a way to better integrate it. Good regards, Kenosis 18:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

facts

I wonder if you might give an opinion of the article fact. 22:44, 10 June 2007 Banno (Talk)

Banno, this article runs directly across central problems of epistemology, and certain theories of truth, especially correspondence, constructivist and pragmatic. It's on my watchlist and my to-do list now. Offhand I'd put it on a timeline of maybe a month or more to pull together into some workable form. ... Kenosis 00:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits. My interest was mainly in bringing it into line with truth, knowledge, belief and the epistemology article - which itself now suffers from wikirot. Some sign of improvement today, but there is still a large section on philosophy that makes little sense. Banno 07:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

Dear Kenosis, any suggestion of how to fix the first sentence of the Description section? Sounds already pretty critical and thus not appropriate for this section.

By promoting a false perception that evolution is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community,


The description also would benefit from a mention about the affiliation issue, since it will come in length in the criticism section. I already pointed out that deceased individuals are kept on the list. This will make the list artificially long with time. But my edits were reverted. Most of my edits were reverted and I am seen by one editor as a troll, so I gave up for the time being. Northfox 23:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive

My apologies for causing you grief. Because I use permanent links to archive, the old material only now exists on the old difs. The simplest solution might be to copy-&-paste the text you want to comment on to the talk page, with an appropriate note explaining its origin. Banno 06:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

NP Banno, no grief at all. Only trying to figure out how the latest set of relevant procedures work. Thanks. ... Kenosis 06:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The process I used is found at Help:Archiving a talk page#Permanent link archives method where the problem you discovered is mentioned. I prefer it because it uses less server resources, and is simple to do. Banno 06:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Sorry about removing my posts from the discussion. It would have messed with the flow. Look forward to hearing from you. I really just need a few days off to relax. I'm meant to be on holidays. Editing on that page was tough. I'll probably work on some simpler topics and talk to you again later. --Comaze 13:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference format at intelligent design

Hi, I thought it would improve the readability of the article. I didn't delete any of the references. No need to get hysterical. Silly rabbit 00:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Kenosis, please read and abide by WP:OWN. You are not the gatekeeper for article improvements. You also appear to be operating under the misconception that edits to featured articles which you have worked on require your permission before they may be applied to the article. This is in error. Please see, for instance, the featured-article banner at the top of Talk:Intelligent design, which explicitly invites direct contributions under WP:BOLD. --FOo 00:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noting this; I think I'll go remove it now. ... Kenosis 01:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Existence

Please leave this article alone if you don't know how to improve it. I can show in detail why the edits you made over the last few days are weak and poorly written. Otherwise, please leave it alone. edward (buckner) 16:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, I just began this cleanup process an hour or so ago, and hadn't finished, nor finished rounding up citations. Secondly, I find the attitude here and in Dbuckner's edit summary to be quite unwelcome here or anywhere, and his marching orders quite unenforceable, at least in the end. Thirdly, this is an article that's been a complete conceptual mess for some time now and in dire need of help. I wonder what is the great attachment to the utter mess that constitutes the article lead at present. Not even a mention of ontology, but it's merely an epistemological problem? as expressed in the introduction of the article as "that existence is what is asserted by statements of first-order logic of the form "for some x Fx". This agrees with the simple and commonsensical view that, in uttering "There is a bridge across the Thames at Hammersmith", or "A bridge crosses the Thames at Hammersmith", one asserts the existence of a bridge across the Thames at Hammersmith. The word "existence", in this view, is a simple way of describing the logical form of an ordinary "subject-predicate" sentence." I could easily imagine I'm dealing with a pompous arse from the analytic school who hasn't the foggiest idea how to write an encyclopedia article or work cooperatively, but that would be speculation so I won't assert such a thing. Have a nice day. I'll deal with this later. ... Kenosis 16:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Science

Your edit [2] did much more than "Some basic cleanup in the lead, per talk". You also put in the TotallyDisputed tag back in there, removing it again three edits later, stating "Removing 'totally-disputed' tag, which vastly overstated the case about the section on scientific method." It seems you basically undid these edits. This is somehow confusing. Are these changes deliberate? --rtc 05:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Review: Intelligent design

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --FOo 09:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Existence

I said I would be happy to discuss the problems with your edit. You wrote

Problems with the concept of existence involve several issues in philosophy. Among the main problems involves the use of the verb "to be" (is, was, and its various other forms). The verb "to be", "is", "was", "will be", "has been", etc., may refer to concepts that have no known counterpart in the real world, such as gnomes or goblins, as well as to things that are accepted to be facts that actually exist beyond being a mere concept of mind.

The first sentence is clumsy. The third is incorrect. The verb 'is' does not refer to anything. And gnomes and goblins are not concepts, though the concept of gnomes is a concept, likewise the concept of goblins. Does that help?

If you think the structure of the current article is a complete mess, say way (on the talk page). Don't write clumsy and inaccurate things in the main article. edward (buckner) 15:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Gerund

I'm not sure it was a good idea to remove the "limitedgeographicscope" template from the page about the gerund. That page used to give the incorrect impression that the gerund works in all languages in the same way as it does in English. The addition of the first sentence fixed the incorrectness of the page's perspective, but not its limitedness: the body of the page still focuses exclusively on the gerund in English. In contrast, the pages about other grammatical terms usually discuss the subject across languages, in addition to English specifics. Following that standard, it seems that the limitedgeographicscope template should be reinstated on the gerund page for the time being. 87.13.254.25 15:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

(The) scientific method

Hi there! Thanks for your note. I don't really feel competent to get involved with the primary issue of the existence or otherwise of "the scientifc method", but I think, purely as a matter of language, we can use "scientific method", without an article, as a direct replacement. Your statement that we can because "scientific method" is an abstract noun and/or a collective noun doesn't seem to give us an accurate test - there are some abstract collective nouns that can't be used in this way. For example, it would be incorrect to say "The school teaches curriculum" or "Literary critisism establishes corpus". I can't immediately think of a test that gives clear results, even for words with very similar meanings: compare "Wikipedia is run by committee" (perfectly standard usage), "Wikipedia is run by cabal" (not obviously wrong, but decidedly unnatural - most native speakers would put the article in), and "Wikipedia is run by coterie" (completely unidiomatic - this sentence needs "a" or "the" to work as English). Again, I'm not disputing your claim that "the scientific method" doesn't exist; I just don't feel that your proposed sentence ("Empirical science uses scientific method") is good English. Tevildo 11:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

While the preferred technical usage is "scientific method", the popular usage remains "the scientific method". That's all I was saying on the ID talk page. It seems it's a maintenance headache that likely is not worth keeping up with, on the whole, because frequently folks come along, see the term "scientific method" without the "the" attached, and plop it right in there, repeatedly. So unless the regular particpants agree to maintain it, as has been done at scientific method, the popular usage will prevail. But my note on your talk page had more to do with settling the issue of the words "empirical science" by finding sourcing for the words, or a suitable alternative. ... Kenosis 15:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC) ... Kenosis 13:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Spellcheck

Noted your comment. Just thought I would offer that I use http://www.iespell.com (free) when using IE based browsers. Firefox has a nice feature that will underline misspelled words. Morphh (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What happened

To lead to this edit summary? I had just started editing. I don't think it's hopeless at all. Marskell 16:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the opinions in the FAR are all over the map, so to speak. I don't think it serves the goal of honest reporting on a controversial topic to be playing around with so many varying interpretations of the FA criteria. It's in the nature of a controversial, complex topic such as ID. ... Kenosis 16:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
What happens on these controversial reviews is a forest-for-the-trees problem. People have their POVs on the particular subject, the nature of FAs themselves then becomes an issue, there's much shouting and carrying on...and all of the little stuff gets forgotten about. So fix the small prose issues brought up (as you did with Tony's comment), audit for clunky language, make the refs consistent, and you'll ultimately have a better page. Marskell 16:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed that's the goal. Thanks much. ... Kenosis 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Why arn't you an administrator yet?

You have been around the traps long enough! Would you accept nomination? Banno 22:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

From my talk page:

Banno, I'm not sure I've gotten adequately involved to go that route quite yet. On the other hand, it would be nice to be of further assistance in moving the philosophy articles forward. I'd like some time to consider whether I'd be able to devote adequate time and attention to the necessary tasks. Will talk later, thanks. ... Kenosis 16:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. The process can be a bit arduous, since they will drag up any deep, dark secrets from your Wiki past, so you need to be prepared. Have a think about how you would answer the standard questions from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

Your edit history from WanabeKate looks good to me: [3]

If any passers-by would support this nomination for a nomination, perhaps they could say so on this talk page?

Otherwise, just let me know when you would like to have a go. Banno 22:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did I think you were already an admin? I need to keep up with these things. Orangemarlin 05:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

ID FAR

Me too. It's plodding work, but the refs'll be in shape eventually. Best, Marskell 06:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis, I just wanted to say I appreciate how you've maintained civility throughout. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

To be clear

As you have asked in a couple of different ways about the FAR process, note that there is a procedure detailed on the main review page. It asks that we not !vote for the first to two to three week review period, to allow ample time for comment. Consensus won't be ignored, to be sure. And if FAR regulars appear to be "conducting" things, do consider the opposite perspective: that someone fresh to the article finds hostility from page regulars. That's what I'm seeing. I'm presently having my good faith impugned by Filll and Jim and it's not particularly fun. I mention it to you because you have maintained civility. Marskell 12:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll drop an email to Jim and Filll regarding the assumption of good faith, asking that they not confuse tendentious opponents of the article with reviewers and others who may have advice, comments, preferences about the article, etc. As to conducting things in the FAR, and alleged hostility to newcomers by page regulars, these are two entirely separate issues that should IMO not even be in the same sentence, other than, say, to illustrate a range of problems that one may confront. FOo's beliefs, which s/he stated both explicitly and implicitly, unfortunately are simply incorrect. The resentment began after FOo's preferences for the article were refused by longer-term participants, including myself, and allegations of WP:OWN (against a very amorphous group no less) began to be alleged. This came with other snipes arising out of FOo's failure to gain consensus, and attempts to browbeat various participants both on the talk page (characterized as "you", meaning "people who edit this article") along with a set of individual gambits such as that posted on my own talk page. As I said on the FAR page, I thought it was a bit overly self-centered to expect the results s/he sought based upon the length of time between initial proposal (several days) and the unilateral outcry about WP:OWN rendered against the collective participants in the article and individually on their talk pages and elsewhere. But, I don't want to spend the time to collect this information into one place unless it appears important to do so, and would prefer that FOo merely begin to see that there is a momentum involved in WP articles, and sometimes one's newly introduced preferences simply don't succeed in persuading the "regulars" that they're an improvement. I'm afraid it goes part and parcel with WP:Consensus. Incidentally, Marskell, I appreciate your note about my having "maintained civility"--to be sure, this can take extra effort at times. ;-) ... Kenosis 17:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Marksell, where did I impugn your "good faith"? Also, if you have a problem, don't bitvch to Kenosis, talk to me. I have no particular feeling against you. You've been wiling to tackle the references issue, and that's some you are to be commended on (and something I'd prefer not to touch with a ten meter cattle prod). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, in going over the FAR, it seems that Marksell may have inferred something I did not imply. Unless I state your name in a post that follows another by someone else, don't assume that I'm talking about you. Filll's point about gold stars was not what I was agreeing with. Rather, "However, this process is not without cost. All the effort being made to defend the article from assorted sniping on both this page and the talk page would be far better spent in careful proofreading of the article itself and fact-checking" was what I was agreeing with. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I as well am amazed to find out that Marksell feels I was attacking him or her. I certainly did not lump them in with the POV warriors which have to be constantly beaten back, on the regular talk page or the FAR page. I also tip my hat to Marksell for undertaking the thankless task of fixing the references. I have done this on other articles in the past, and it is quite unpleasant. My role on intelligent design is mainly to offer my advice, and to try to help combat the vandals and trolls. I do not write much of that article at all. It is just too difficult to do so. I spend my article writing efforts on other articles that are not so difficult to work with.--Filll 21:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis, just noticed your remarks about sandy this and the other. Having lived in the general area for a while, I'm always reminded of Sandy, Beds, which sounds like the sort of thing that happens when you're staying at the seaside ;) .. dave souza, talk 23:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, I imagine you mean my use of Sandy Springs and Sandy Hook as examples of non-controversial-articles-to-which-it-is-not-feasible-to-compare-the-one-that-was-then-under-review. A number of seaside places so named -- I wonder why. ;-) ... Kenosis 01:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell Sandy I said this, but I've never really seen a problem with the ID FAR apart from the incivility. The consensus was keep and close, and the FAR was closed and the status kept. DrKiernan 18:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ultimately it was closed as recommended by the dominant majority of commentators. I'm a bit disturbed by the perception of several in the FA community that it somehow was not properly brought to a conclusion, when in fact it was properly brought to a conclusion by closing it as a keep, thus respecting a clear consensus. But it's not really my bailiwick, so my observations were limited to attempting to identify the tensions and potential sources of confusion. Plainly the position of some is that the procedure is fine the way it is. To me it seems clear that the ground rules are quite unclear and the stance among some is basically, "it's fine; just let us decide on an as-needed basis because we know what's best from experience". So I disagree; NP. Thanks for the note, DrKeirnan. ... Kenosis 18:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Bernard d'Abrera

I would appreciate it if you scanned my article on this gentleman for potential problems. I created it in connection with A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Thanks.--Filll 22:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll go have a look-see. Incidentally, thanks for the expansion of Clergy Letter Project. ... Kenosis 20:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I have also improved (hopefully) Project Steve, A Scientific Support for Darwinism, Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity and Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism. I want all these articles to be at least better than stubs.--Filll 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry you got chased out of the discussion at Non-free content. I'm sure I had more than zero part of your leaving, so I apologize for the discussion environment that had developed. It's probably a good idea for me to step away for a bit as well. Maybe write about Pogs or something a little more light-hearted :-). Sancho 18:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the note. Talk later. ... Kenosis 18:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Preview button

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. --Abu badali (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this recommendation, Abu badali. A recent revew of Abu badali's talk submissions also indicates that this funtion could be of use there as well. Myself, I reserve the right to return after the basic thrust of a talk page comment is posted in order to clean up remaining typos, grammatical and syntax issues, and such. ... Kenosis 15:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Please, don't take that personally. It was intended as a helpful advice. --Abu badali (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I think Kenosis' style of editing is fine...no, beyond fine -- it is an excellent and highly productive way to get the thoughts out there; it is then proofed by Kenosis afterwards. In other words, I see no problems. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Wundt-research-group.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wundt-research-group.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

tagged &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Figh2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Figh2.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

tagged &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Einstein images

In the recent debate, I didn't bring up this issue, but I'd be interested in your opinion on it. Carcharoth 09:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, this is quite understandable, and does not by any stretch of imagination mean that all public-domain photographs of Einstein cannot be freely used by the public. I am still in the process of looking into it further, though. Einstein left his estate to Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Einstein had actively supported the university during his life and this support continues with the royalties received from licensing activities. It appears that Hebrew University of Jerusalem entered into a contract with the Roger Richman Agency to license the commercial use of the name "Albert Einstein" and associated imagery and likenesses of Einstein (celebrity rights essentially), as agent for the Hebrew University. As head licensee the agency can control commercial usage of Einstein's name (e.g., when Albert Einstein's name is used in a trademark or commercial advertisement). In May, 2005, the Roger Richman Agency was acquired by Corbis. ... Kenosis 14:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Tendentious argumentation

On Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content you mentioned "very subjective NFCC#8 and overly broad interpretations of NFCC#2." I am undergoing one on the commons. [[4] I had already uploaded a new version to en:Wikipedia so this discussion doesn't matter. Image:FloppyRom_Magazine.jpg With so many images with obvious copyright problems I don't know why the "copyright police" dig in on marginal issues. -- SWTPC6800 03:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

European Union

Well, technically it's the European Economic Area. Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein also have to implement EU directives on copyright. Haukur 18:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'm OK with whatever particular wording that is appropriate to describe the additional nations that've signed onto the EU directives. I understand Finland is hedging on it due to the free-speech/fair-dealing issues. Anyway, there are multiple wikiipedians involved-- whatever is chosen will, I hope, turn out to reasonably express it so it's both simple and accurate. .... Kenosis 18:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Truth

Time Saving Truth from Falsehood and Envy, François Lemoyne, 1737

The Islandic Wikipedia, which is the only one with a featured Truth article, uses the painting in the lead. Isn't it better to follow the Manual of Style than to run from vandals? What were the other pictures removed? I am astonished that such paintings can represent any point of view with regard to a particular theory -- how exactly is that possible? ←BenB4 08:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Two additional issues bayond what I left on your talk page: First WP:MOS never trumps local consensus. Second, believe it or not, La Verite was taken to be an icon of correspondence theory, and the users who maintained that position had a point, IMO. There were raucous POV disputes in that article, and for a very long time it was regarded as a tar pit until we stabilized it with a great deal of work. The topic is difficult enough for many people without dealing with unnecessary censorship arguments. If someone can find an effectuve image that can stand up front without ridiculous controversy, then great--please upload it; I feel sure everyone who participated in the article will be delighted to put it in the lead. Thanks. ... Kenosis 08:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I found Truth Leaving the Well which I love, but she's holding the same mirror that La Verite has, so I found Time Saving Truth from Falsehood and Envy which is even better (right.) ←BenB4 11:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Jesus myth hypothesis

I noted your comment on the article above about how the article had gone through the renaming question already. Personally, as suggested on the talk page there, I personally think "Historical Jesus as myth" might be the best title, as it helps indicate that the subject is the allegedly (probably, in my eyes) historical Jesus, and it indicates that the content about the other "myths" about Jesus (travels to Egypt, India, Central America, probably Mars and lord knows where else, etc., ad nauseum) would probably best fit in to fall within the scope of a separate article. Also, from what little I've seen of you that I can remember, I think you'd probably be a good admin too. Thanks for all your work, and for your little "history lesson" on the talk page above. John Carter 14:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Images listed for deletion

Image:Oneill.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Oneill.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Figh2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Figh2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Time evolution wars.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Time evolution wars.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. —Angr 23:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

For reverting the vandalism to my user page I just noticed today. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 16:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wesley R. Elsberry and WP:3RR

Hi, Kenosis. Are you Wesley R. Elsberry? I ask because of the attribution information on Image:Dembski head shot 2.jpg.

As a side note, about your comment on my talk page about WP:3RR, please carefully check the facts. I had reverted the page only twice. And the policy says you can get blocked for reverting a page "more than three times". --Abu badali (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Abu badali. Someone puts an image in] and Abu badali removes it, that's a revert; someone else puts it back in and Abu badali reverts again, that's another revert; yet someone else puts an image in and Abu badali reverts yet again, that's three in less than one day. And, it's tendentious edit warring with neither discussion on the talk page nor reasoned attempt to gain consensus.

As to Wesley Elsberry, the original license is at Image:Wad by wre 20060317 2972.JPG. I'll go make a note on the image page. ... Kenosis 16:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a very minor thing to contact Wesley R. Elsberry at User: Wesley R. Elsberry. I will also note that you can be blocked for reverting only twice, depending on circumstances.--Filll 16:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem with the picture? --Wesley R. Elsberry 19:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem at all AFAIK, except that image police are presently investigating w.r.t. intelligent design (a quite reasonable investigation, I should note). I cropped your image to get a head shot that would work in place of the previously used image. If you object to the crop, please leave a note on Talk:intelligent design. And thanks for granting a free license for the image. ... Kenosis 19:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the explanation. I wasn't sure what was going on. I don't have a problem with cropping, as long as the grant of rights from the original carries over to any derivative works. --Wesley R. Elsberry 20:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Got it covered. Thanks for providing the image. ... Kenosis 20:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Book covers

Just a heads-up - I disputed the fair-use rationale for the three book covers in Intelligent design. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi - can you point me to the discussion where consensus was achieved on inclusion of the book covers in Intelligent design? Videmus Omnia Talk 19:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It's either on the current talk page or in the most recent archive. ... Kenosis 19:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Just to confirm - is this the discussion? Videmus Omnia Talk 20:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe the discussion started here, and proceeded for several sections. ... Kenosis 20:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll read through them. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Time magazine cover

Hey, Kenosis. In a recent edit at Intelligent design, you deleted a mention of the Time magazine cover from the lead of the article, and your edit comment said:

Removing the reference to the specific Time Magazine issue from the lead. The cover image stands on its own as fair-use because it illustrates the public dimension of the controversy at its height

I really hope you are right about that. I think you ought to be right about that. But for reasons that are totally opaque to me, there seems to be some urgent drive to get rid of perfectly sensible fair use of such images, by nit picking over the wording of guidelines and taking things to the most extreme possible interpretation with a view to deleting anything not a completely free use image. It looks like some strange kind of position of principle that is being held of even greater importance that the actual useful content of the encyclopedia. I really don't get it.

But in the meantime, I want to be sure that we provide a very obvious and clear basis for any ruling administrator of the value of this image to the article. I think it does provide significant value with real content, not merely better presentation. If the anti-fair-use-of-non-free-images campaign has followers even amongst the administrators who rule on deletion motions, then this becomes even more important. Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it needs to be mentioned in the article, it can be integrated into the Controversy section, with a brief mention of other examples of major exposure too, such as the NY Times, etc. But its valid fair use does not hinge on being an illustration of text already in the article, because it's a self-standing illustration of the public dimension of the controversy. Also, WP does not require a textual reference to the specific work, but rather, this is the position of regularly active "only free content" advocates and image-deletion advocates. ... Kenosis 15:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Anrie's post

Hi, Kenosis, I'm not sure what you were thinking of at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 21, but I have reverted your edit. While of course it's not technically a vote, still, if we refer to it as such for reasons of convenience, then that post that you tampered with was Anrie's only vote on the subject. There was no duplicate that I could see; yet you changed it from Remove as proposed to Response. In any case, it would be much better, if you think that a vote is invalid for some reason, to put a comment underneath it, pointing that out, and to leave a note for the user concerned, asking them to go back and make whatever modifications are necessary. People can get very angry if they think someone is tampering with their vote. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting it! I had Anrie confused with Angr. ... Kenosis 15:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Template fixed

I fixed the template for fair use of the time magazine cover about five minutes before you tried making various modifications... :-) It was unmatched brackets for an internal link. History will show the diff. Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 17:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Images for deletion

Some images you uploaded have been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussions to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. The images were:

Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As to the issues that have visibly manifested within the last week or so w.r.t. image deletion practice, yes Quadell, as you said, "We've had our disagreements in some image deletion debates." Myself, I don't have a clue how these debates will fall "at the end of the day", so to speak, or where the related issues might lead from there. But I most certainly am interested in discussing these issues much further, as my time may permit. I believe there are multiple interacting issues that contribute unnecessarily to disagreements about what's valid WP content and what's not valid WP content. So, let's keep in touch about this. As I said, as time permits, I'm more than willing to attempt to identify the problematic issues w.r.t. permissible images. Other media, frankly, I don't care about, because they run right into the teeth of modern copyright law. IMO, once the issues related to still images are reasonably well identified, those involved in this particular set of arguments about 50 to 100 year-old photographs can, I surely hope, move onto another hopefully productive set of issues. But, for the moment, maybe we can keep the issue of the low-resolution still images in our sights. ... Kenosis 05:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Although you've probably seen it elsewhere, I wanted to point you to Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Images_probably_in_the_public_domain, to ask if you could comment there. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobel photos

I added a comment here about the Nobel photos. Hope you can shed some light on what that all means! Carcharoth 04:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The plot thickens. . . The Nobel Foundation wrote me back. Here is the entire text of their response:
In Swden, there is a law regarding copyright which says that the copyright expires 70 years after that the photographer has died. According to that law, we do distribute the historical photos of Alfed Nobel, dynamite, his houses and his family to the press. Regarding the portrait photos of the Lauretaes we do not give permission to reprint due to copyright considerations. Photos from the Nobel Prize Award Ceremony and Banquet have been taken by our photographer, exclusively for the website. We recommend for people to purchase similar photos from one of the photo agencies represented in the photo pool accredited by the Nobel Foundation, such as Reuters, Associated Press or Agence France Presse. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact our legal counsel ms Lanner at erika.lanner@nobel.se
To muddy the waters even more, their "copyright" page states:
Permission to use an image or a photo of a Nobel Prize medal is only granted if. . . [blah blah blah]. . . For uses of photos, other than those of a Nobel Laureate, permission from the Nobel Foundation or Nobel Web AB, and in certain cases, from the photographer, is required.
No information about photos of laureates is given. The PDF version of the "terms and conditions" is the same, but it omits the "other than those of a Nobel Laureate" clause. What do I make of this? My conclusion is that, despite the "Photos: Copyright © The Nobel Foundation" statement on each page, the Nobel Foundation is not making a clear claim of copyright on the photos. I still don't know how to treat the photos though. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think we've been quite cautious here. Among the images that have been at issue recently, nothing is called public domain that isn't public domain on its face. Nothing post-1937. If they can show that they attributed the photographer in their public copyright claims prior to the expiration of 70 years, then the public domain assertion will be promptly removed and a case made for fair use of the web-resolution images of these historically important persons. And, it also appears on its face that they're PD in the US for all images prior to 1963, But I haven't addressed the ones between 1937 and 1963, because they involve a separate set of issues, as you know already. Nice research, Quadell. ... Kenosis 15:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

1978-1989

Hello again. We have a tag, {{PD-Pre1978}}, that can be used for images that are in the public domain because they were first published in the U.S. without a copyright notice before 1978. (It should probably be changed to {{PD-US-Pre1978}}.) As I'm sure you're aware, images first published between 1/1/1978 and 3/1/1989 in the U.S. without a copyright notice are also PD if the author failed to subsequently register the copyright (and I assume that if they didn't bother to add a © when they published it, they usually didn't bother to register the copyright either). This can be checked at http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html since that claims to a complete record of copyright registrations of all types from 1978 on.

So. . . do you think we ought to have a {{PD-US-1978-1989}} tag or something similar? I'm not sure the best name, obviously. Do you see any errors in my reasoning here? I figure if you and I actually agree, then we're probably right. :-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with this additional template, as it's an important class of images. Please also see Wikipedia_talk:Public_domain#Yet_another_PD_template_added and Template:PD-Pre1964. I was about to give you and some others the heads-up, but you beat me to it. ... Kenosis 22:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Related: I noticed Fantastic Universe is a recently Featured Article about a 1950s magazine whose main image was tagged as non-free. After doing five minutes worth of armchair research, I concluded that the image is actually PD. This would probably be a good candidate for the new {{PD-Pre1964}} tag, now that I think about it. Unless I missed a digit somewhere, it looks like any photo, book, magazine, etc. published between 1/1/1950 and 12/31/1963 is PD, unless you can find it renewed at the comprehensive online search here. (For anything before 1950, you'd have to use other searches, and I haven't studied those for completeness.) I'd like to get the word out about this, since it seems like there are lots of great possibilities here. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Haukurth has pointed out to me that there's already a template in place called {{PD-US-not renewed}} with Category:PD US not renewed. Since only a small percentage of material published 1923-1963 was renewed, it represents a vast pool of public domain material, and as such I would think non-renewed images created in this time period will have the potential to be an important source of images for WP in the future. ... Kenosis 17:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Jim62sch's talk page

It would be appreciated if you did not revert changes that are made to conform to Wikipedia guidelines, especially with such a revert summary. ELIMINATORJR 18:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If the assertion is that certain material does not belong on a user talk page, please bring the issue up in an appropriate forum such as a Request for Comment rather than deleting from that user's page. If it's that far off base, then a broader group of participants will make an appropriate decision one way or another. ... Kenosis 18:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to start an RFC for every inappropriate thing anyone could put in user space. Polemical statements on user pages are expressly covered by WP:USER; there's even a quote from Jimbo about it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks CBM. It occurs to me there's also an administrator's noticeboard that could serve to arbit such a dispute fairly expediently. Thanks. ... Kenosis 18:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It's been suggested that WP:AN is an appropriate venue. Deleting a factual statement without prior discussion is a good way to annoy a productive user, and the question of whether it's a polemic is arguable. .. dave souza, talk 19:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:FredThomsonFBO.jpg

In the IFD discussion about this image you stated the image is public domain, but offered none of your usual helpful research to support that. Have you done any research on this? If you can provide evidence that the image is PD then the image can stay with no issue as far as copyright. Thanks -Nv8200p talk 19:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Nv8200p. Yes, I quickly researched the history of FBO and RKOs acquisition and also looked in the US Copyright Office online records to see if there were any renewals under RKO in the early fifties. I've posted it somewhere, and will try to find it and post it at the IfD. ... Kenosis 19:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction to intelligent design

I decided to try to scratch down some early ideas on what this might look like. I think that something simple, but not too simple, might be helpful. Something for people that are maybe at about the grade 8 (or 13 year old) reading level in English. You can see the basically blank page at User:Filll/Introduction to Intelligent Design draft. If you want to throw down some ideas too, you are welcome. --Filll 20:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Query

How do you feel about my referencing your research statement (the one that now appears on the Fred Thomson image page) in blockquote format as appropriate for RKO image pages currently tagged as FU but actually PD, as you've demonstrated?

Also, I've added Template:PD-Pre1964 to Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Public domain. All the best, Dan.—DCGeist 21:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Dan, no objection at all, as long as it faithfully represents the best available information on progeny of images image(s) originating from FBO/RKO. ... Kenosis 21:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up to your comment on the Public Domain talk page

I posted what I found about Minnesota law and the booking photo issue. My rather lengthy message is posted under Update: applicability of PD or non-free image tag for Sen. Craig mugshot. Lwalt ♦ talk 19:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the in-depth research, Lwalt. Very useful resources you provided for us to draw upon. ... Kenosis 00:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Computers unrelated to evo-bio

I'd really disagree that you can dismiss computer science as unrelated to evo bio. Even on our CS page [[5]] a minor connection is made.

I'm just really asking for a citation at Rosalind Picard to avoid WP:SYNTH. If an establish link can't be made through citations between Picard and Brayton's comments, they really can't be included in the article to maintain WP:NOR.--ZayZayEM 07:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

NP ZayZayEM. Computer science being unrelated to evolutionary biology was not the specific assertion, IMO. The assertion had to do with credentials and expertise of the person practicing the field, which was cited in multiple locations on the page. ... Kenosis 16:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Irreducible complexity

If you disagree with my decision that the book cover is not fair use in the article, please take the issue to Wikipedia:Fair use review or some other forum. Do not just revert the image back in. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 21:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nv, as you know, it's already been decided by the local consensus, and has something close to a clear consensus in the IfDs, which you unilaterally overrode. ... Kenosis 21:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I've seen the policy on use of non-free book covers override local consensus many times. That is why this issue needs to go to a different forum if you disagree. -Nv8200p talk 21:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Nv, the issue has already been raised at two separate IfDs, here and here. The overwhelming consensus at both IfDs was that both images were appropriate under the NFCCs for use in intelligent design and irreducible complexity. As I said, Phillip E. Johnson I havent' followed, but if the consensus supports its use there, I go with the consensus. On the other side of the ledger, with respect to both images, there were roughly six regular "anti-fair-use" advocates who voted the other way, with largely non-substantive commentary at that. In other words, you unilaterally overruled the consensus that the use of the image in these articles was valid in accordance with the NFCCs. ... Kenosis 22:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

re: Irreducible complexity

You recently made an edit in the ongoing dispute over the appropriateness of Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg on this page. Please join debate at Image talk:Darwinsblackbox.jpg#Use of this image in Irreducible complexity. Rossami (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. ... Kenosis 01:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines

Does my rewrite of the essay section address your concerns? --Kevin Murray 20:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I surely would not want to be overly influential in the decision. Perhaps a note on User talk:Father Goose and User talk:SmokeyJoe would be appropriate before deciding. ... Kenosis 20:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I've responded on POL's talk page. Thanks! >Radiant< 09:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration request

A request for arbitration involving you has been filed here. Please view the request, and add any statements you feel are necessary for the ArbCom to consider in deciding whether to hear the dispute. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Videmus. ... Kenosis 03:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Minimal use (comment on Image talk:Darwinsblackbox.jpg)

At least two other people have also pointed out to you on WT:NONFREE that the word "minimal" in our policy is meant to be taken very literally and is not related to fair use law. [6] [7] Our nonfree use policies are only marginally related to fair use law, so arguing that an image use is acceptable per fair use law does not help establish that the use is acceptable on Wikipedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Nor does it necessarily mean "only in the article on the book per se". And at least two other people have pointed out to you and other deletion advocates that the WP use of "minimal" to mean "only one" is an arbitrary distinction. Three articles is still minimal use, and is entirely defensible because the use is in articles directly related to the book. ... Kenosis 14:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion noficiations vs. spam

If you ask Betacommand about why the bot doesn't notify more widely, I am confident he'll be glad to explain. He has repeatedly expressed his willingness to modify the bot to notify in the most convenient manner. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I imagine there are solutions to all of this. As we've seen, the discussions can be contentious. But I think there are less divisive solutions that will still meet the March 2008 deadline and remain significantly stricter than the Board's EDP resolution calls for. ... Kenosis 15:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image problem

Hi Kenosis, this is with ref to the new image you've posted at Josephine Bakhita. I was really glad to see another image in place since I had to delete the original I uploaded, but I'm afraid I'm pretty sure we can't use the one you've provided: I think that's a new painting commissioned by the Holy See for her canonization in 2000. As such, the PD templates are not right. Unfortunately I don't think the 1931 image I had deleted would be legal under those templates either: the 1931 publication was definitely attributed, not anonymous :-( We might be able to use the original under the "US not renewed" template, what do you think? ~ VeledanT 18:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent information, and thank you for lettimg me know. I'll go attend to it right now. If it's a 1931 image with an author attribution published in a European Union nation, the copyright must also be respected in the United States, in keeping with the Berne Convention and the URAA. That standard is 95 years after the death of the author, and even under a more liberal interpretation of the relevant laws, it's 70 years after the death of the author. Either way it's copyrighted in the US if your informatioin is correct. ... Kenosis 18:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, information corrected with an appropriate template. If any new information comes in, e.g., from the order she belonged to, with respect to either this image or the other one, kindly let me know. Thanks. ... Kenosis 18:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, Veledan. If the original goes back to 1931, or perhaps even before that (I believe a much earlier publication date was mentioned for the image, it may well be in the public domain. But we'd need to have credible information that the photograph or painting itself is unattributed. The author of the photograph or painting is the photographer or painter, not the author of the book. ... Kenosis 19:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kenosis,

I'm unclear how to deal with a troubling procedural irregularity on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Moulton.

Please go to the history page for that RfC and find these three entries:

1. (cur) (last) 07:51, September 5, 2007 Moulton (Talk | contribs) (38,311 bytes) (→Response) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 07:37, September 5, 2007 ConfuciusOrnis (Talk | contribs) (28,896 bytes) (→Response - rm repost of personal emails) (undo)
3. (cur) (last) 07:20, September 5, 2007 ConfuciusOrnis (Talk | contribs) (32,890 bytes) (→Response - repost moulton's response minus the colourful formating) (undo)

In the two edits by ConfuciousOrnis, you will see that he twice edited the Response section, and inserted my signature line into the otherwise vacant approval/endorsement slot at the bottom. I immediately removed the bogus signature line in the approval/endorsement section, without comment, other than this one where I politely asked Ornis not to tamper with my Response.

I don't quite know how to properly raise this issue, but part of the controversy is the practice of gratuitously affixing someone's signature to an altered version of a document they never signed. Whether it's an augmented version or an abridged or redacted version, the unauthorized insertion of someone else's signature could be viewed as an inappropriate tampering of an evidentiary record in a formal/official proceeding that seeks to affect the status or standing of someone within a community.

Moulton 11:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll drop him a note informing him that the convention is different on those pages than on talk pages and WP:XfD pages. ... Kenosis 14:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC) ... I just looked at the [history of that RfC, and I can't find the edits you're referring to. Perhaps you're referring to a different page. ... Kenosis 14:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is the URL as it appears in my browser window...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Moulton&diff=prev&oldid=155824612
I had not posted anything at all in the public RfC page at that point. Ornis took an unsigned rehearsal draft from Filll's private userspace, moved it to the public RfC page and gratuitously added a signature mark in the otherwise vacant "approval" section that made it look like I had signed the "approval" section. Ornis then made a further edit to abridge or redact portions of what he had initially copied over. As soon as I discovered that, I removed the bogus signature line from the RfC, as I had not yet approved anything for public release on the actual (public) RfC. I hadn't even finished crafting my response at that stage.
If you look at versions of the RfC just before and just after Ornis publicly posted that unfinished draft, you can see what I'm talking about.
I have no idea how to address this issue.
Moulton 19:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a bit more effort and you could have resolved this. CO reposted this [8], which you had put on the unfinished RFC, as follows:
(cur) (last) 07:21, 5 September 2007 Moulton (Talk | contribs) (26,828 bytes) (→Response - Commentary from Jim62sch) (undo)
(cur) (last) 07:04, 5 September 2007 Moulton' (Talk | contribs) (26,157 bytes) (→Response - Republication Request from Mike Sweeney) (undo)
(cur) (last) 06:46, 5 September 2007 Moulton (Talk | contribs) (25,188 bytes) (→Response - Leon D'Souza Comment) (undo)
(cur) (last) 06:28, 5 September 2007 Moulton (Talk | contribs) (23,232 bytes) (→Response from Ken Chang) (undo)
(cur) (last) 05:48, 5 September 2007 Moulton (Talk | contribs) (21,915 bytes) (→Response - First item of response - Call for a Functional Social Contract to avoid recurring Liminal Social Drama.) (undo)
Enjoy. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Kenosis, you should now be able to see both the original material that I had begun to assemble on User:Filll's private rehearsal area, the subset of it which User:ConfuciusOrnis (who is an adversarial editor) unilaterally transferred to the public RfC page, and the signature mark which Ornis relocated into the otherwise vacant "approval" section of the public RfC page. I take exception to an adversarial editor usurping my role by posting selected excerpts from an unfinished rehearsal page and affixing my signature to the "approval" section at the bottom of the Response section. Moulton 20:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Moulton, your preference for ConfuciusOrnis to not have done this is fair enough. If this happened to me, I would just remove it and make a note that I'm removing material placed by that user. It would appear s/he may have thought the collectively worked-on material should go in. If you don't want something there associated with your name, just remove it. If CO still thinks it should be included, s/he will need to quote you, provide a link or diff, or some other method to make it clear that you signed somewhere else but didn't necessarily intend for it to go into the RfC. ... Kenosis 20:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that, Kenosis. I'm still troubled by the practice of adversarial parties selecting material to contribute to both sides of an RfC. As to what anybody thought, I don't have enough evidence to construct a reliable theory of mind of any of the other parties here. I have enough trouble making up my own mind in the wake of a confusing miasma of evidence. I'm prepared to let this one go as a sign of good will. Moulton 21:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right, it's all a plot crafted by editors who find you to be a tendentious git. Me, I just think you're a bit, well, crazed. OK, no really, what happened is very easy to discern, you posted on Fill's draft (not his "private playground") and I'm betting that CO assumed that you wanted that posted on the real RFC. No evil intent, no malice aforethought, nothing more than reposting. All of which is irrelevant as you reposted it yourself: [9]
How do you know CO reposted unilaterally. I'm sure he types with two hands.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Generally yes. Moulton also rather neatly omits to mention the part where after he reposted the material, an admin removed it[10], and explained at length to him, why reposting private emails without specific permission is a no-no[11], or that they are in any case completely irrelevant[12]. ornis (t) 02:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't object to User:KillerChihuahua's interventions because he/she remained neutral, evenhandedly correcting miscues on both sides, and did not sign an endorsement on either side. Moulton 03:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Climate change denial discussion

As I appear to have generated a lot of ill-will on that talk page (not from you, as far as I know), I'd like to ask you to look into making sure that the sentence is edited correctly when it finally happens. Some of the things I mean by "correctly" include making sure that the sources support the sentence (note that Kim whittled the 5 sources down to 3) and that the sentence is as accurate as possible. I really don't want anything else to do with that article. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. If it's agreed to be put in there with a reasonably strong consensus, which it has, I'll do my best to make sure it reflects the consensus. I do wish the repetitious and tendentious arguments would stop and allow folks to do more productive things, though. ... Kenosis 19:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Btw, at the risk of being repetitive (but I'll risk it here, because I don't think it'll be taken the wrong way) consider what happens to the proposed sentence:

Media sources and others have described it as a form of denialism.

when you replace the "it" with what it is referring to:

Media sources and others have described climate change denial as a form of denialism.

If you still think that's meaningful, then you have my blessing to change it (for as little as that's worth). Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Obviously it should be worded and syntaxed acccording to its placement in the article. If the sentence(s) before makes clear what "it" is, then "it" is adequate. If not, then it's not. ... Kenosis 19:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that it actually be replaced — I was merely commenting on its meaning. I'm guessing that you quite understand its meaning, and I was definitely not meaning to insult your intelligence on that. If it came off that way, I apologize. Furthermore, I will not be insulted at all if you want to delete any of my comments from your talk page. I just didn't want to contribute anymore to the cluttering on the climate change denial talk page. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, understood about the meaning of the sentence. I was referring only to the use of the word "it". The use of the word denialism, in keeping with the present consensus at that page, which is in turn based upon a reasonable amount of reliable sourcing, makes clear that there is a broader class of "denials", so to speak, called "denialism", that tend to have certain kinds of strategies and other tendencies in common. Sure it could be better worded, but the consensus there is that it deserves mention in the lead of the article. ... Kenosis 20:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

trophy

Thanks for chiming in. "With respect to the question by Dweller about the footballer holding the trophy, of course such an image can be free-licensed." How? --Dweller 04:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The author, the photographer, merely needs to give explicit permission to upload it under one of the free licenses. I think that's what Videmus Omnia was working on or suggesting a course of action to accomplish that if the photographer is willing to do so. Currently available free-license tags for WP uploads are shown at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses ... Kenosis 15:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This is probably a bit off-topic and is rather over my head, but just wondered if you'd been watching Groklaw lately. .. dave souza, talk 14:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Likewise

Thank you for enlightening me—and, I imagine, many others—on this domain of copyright history. It's clear that it will prove a very valuable resource for maintaining and improving the quality of the encyclopedia, especially as the exercise of our free use rights is increasingly restricted, to some degree by policy, to a much greater one in practice. In respect of your efforts in this area, I consider you among the most productive contributors to the project I've come across. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 02:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Pregnancy

No problem about the crossed reverts. We have a vandal here. He has repeatedly edited and deleted my talk page comments. He is edit-warring, and driving other users nuts. Do you have experience with this kind of thing? What would you recommend?Ferrylodge 18:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on the article talk page. It's time for that user to cut the crap, per WP:Point, WP:Consensus, WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, etc. ... Kenosis 18:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking block for disruption if this keeps up, myself. I may ask another admin to take a look. I've been off most of the day, I hadn't checked history and didn't know about the talk page violations. That's completely unacceptable. Puppy is losing patience. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Cover art & 'critical commentary' in Intelligent design

Hi, as you've restored one of these images, could you take a look at my ideas in Talk:Intelligent design#Sample 'critical commentary' boxes. As I'm not edit-warring anybody (unlike the image-deletion-warriors, I'm not so quixotic as to think that doing so against the consensus actually achieves anything), it seems I'm flying under everybody's radar at the moment. If we can get these warriors out of our hair in a manner that also improves the article, then I'm all for it. Hrafn42TalkStalk 04:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Critical commentary is not required. The WP:NFCC policy, as written in the wake of the March 2007 Wikimedia Board resoulution, states: "3(a) Minimal number of uses. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. 3(b) Minimal extent of use. The entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/sample length is used (especially where the original could be used for piracy). This rule also applies to the copy in the Image: namespace." The demand of several users focused on image deletion for "critical commentary" arises out of WP:NFC, which is a guideline, not a policy, and cannot trump the local consensus. Either way, though, the article is filled with critical commentary as it is. Please do not change the language for this reason only, unless you had already wanted to propose this new language-- if that's the case, it can be discussed on its own merits. Personally I don't think it's needed. ... Kenosis 04:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The article has no critical commentary about the books themselves, which I think is the main reason that so many people have said the use is not in agreement with the nonfree image policy. It's true that the premise of adding text to justify an image is odd. That's because most articles begin with the text and then gain the images as appropriate. In this case, several editors are beginning with the premise that the images belong and worrying about how to shoehorn their use into our image policy. I don't have anything against that as long as the article is brought into agreement with policy relatively soon. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
As I just pointed out, CBM, WP:NFCC is the policy, and WP:NFC project page, is a guideline. The "critical commentary" that you and several others have asserted is required is a guideline that never trumps the local consensus. Moreover, the history of both the NFCC and the WP:NFC project page shows that both the policy and the asscoiated guideline are "shifting goalposts" that have changed numerous times in fairly rapid succession. Either way, in this case it is a matter for the local consensus among participants in the article. ... Kenosis 15:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
In my experience, "local consensus" is a phrase used most often when a group of editors who have been editing a page don't want to follow broader consensus on an issue when that consensus is brought to their attention. I invite you to discuss these images (again) on WT:NONFREE if you think that the use on intelligent design meets WP:NFCC. I have been watching the policy discussion there quite closely, and watching practice as images are removed from various articles for not satisfying the policy requirements, but it's certainly possible for me to be wrong. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The application of CBM's experience to this situation mysteriously neglects the 16-5 weight of opinion in the IfD and the ongoing consensus in the article, along with the other various attempts at image deletion that I pointed out at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Question_about_Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg, all of which have failed. (The administrative override of consensus in the IfDs was discussed at Administrators' noticeboard and the result of that discussion made plain the implications of the administrative override as well as the questionable strategy of bringing the IfDs in the first place.) The overwhelming consensus at the intelligent design article page has been that the uses are valid and in keeping with current NFCC. In addition, there appears to be a strong consensus at that article and an increasing number of other articles that the NFC and NFCC are in dire need of attention and correction, both as to the current language and as to the current manner of implementation. Thus the "sword cuts both ways" here. Two things have happened along the way. 1) Many users have simply left in response to this type of interference by rovers into articles previously left to participants willing to become intimately familiar with the topic, rather than just participating at the article to pursue a single WP:Point without becoming familiar with the article content. 2) A few have decided to continue being involved in the project and participate in the policy discussion, which is how it needs to be in order to prevent an increasingly steep pyramid from developing, here in WP and most other places in the "real world". Myself, I'm somewhat on the fence at this point. I think the concept of consensus may be in the process of being rendered obsolete-- if so, one of the reasons for my interest in the project is rapidly being whittled away for lack of adequately broad participation in the policy discussion and/or by overly rapid implementation of new policy by a few. I'm reminded of the WP:A fiasco, where the policy was implemented, then rapidly rejected after being put into play. Here, the speed at which the reaction is occurring is slower, but I sense the implications for process on the wiki are far more consequential. ... Kenosis 17:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines

Thanks. Guidelines should not be imposed against local consensus. That should probably be said more clearly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)