User talk:Kosebamse/Archive5

Wikicite project page

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikicite To add a card catalog and citation features. Stirling Newberry 01:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration - Robert the Bruce

To your comment on my talk page I respond as follows:

Good to see I have got your attention. Now instead of shooting the messenger why don't you address the issues I raised? Now please explain to me how a statement of the truth can be a personal attack? As to nails in coffins ... there was never the remotest possibility that there was a fair and just arbitration process here on Wikipedia. On advice I gave the use of the AMA a shot which proved my original position that the idiots on ArbCom don't even read such submissions. Half the people who stand in judgement have hopelessly compromised either their integrity or their honesty or both leading up to and during this process yet sit there like Emperor Nero (untouchable and above the policies that apply to lesser mortals). The system is broken and needs to be fixed ... are you going to do something about it or what? - Robert the Bruce 09:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page. Kosebamse 12:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Guy Montag

No problem.

Guy Montag 08:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hestur

Hello, when I was doing the Faroe Islands pages I got into the habit of having an individual page for each town. It probably would be better just to merge them I suppose. Sdrawkcab 21:35, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)sdrawkcab

RFA

Hi, I don't take RFA votes personally, but I do find your comment puzzling. Given his recent behavior on a highly controversial page, I am not convinced that Tony would use his gifts in that spirit. My behavior on autofellatio, perhaps? Perhaps you'd like to check my edits on that page; I think you'll find that my edits have been very few, judicious and restrained. To wit, I have not reverted the image to inline when it was witched to a linked version. On the talk page I did my best to ensure that the poll, which was organized precipitately and at first showed no sign of reaching a consensus, gained as wide a currency as possible (signposted on Wikipedia:Current surveys and Wikipedia:Village pump or one of its subpages. As another voter says, my opinion on inlining the image, while not in the majority, is shared by nearly 40% of those who have voted, and I have at no time argued that the image should be inlined in the face of the emerging majority (though not yet apparently a consensus) to link.

I think that's rather good behavior. I have at all times subordinated my own opinion to the interests of Wikipedia. Don't take my word for it--go and check my edits and comments on that page and its talk page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unduly harsh. Please let me explain. I don't doubt that you are motivated, write well and understand well how to work on Wikipedia, but it is my impression that you miss an essential point about what Wikipedia is and what it is for. What worries me is, firstly, that you reverted the same page at least twice within a short time [1] [2] (not to the same version, but nevertheless), which might indicate an overzealous attitude and/or lack of patience, but that's not a crime and would not make me vote against you. What worries me more than that is that you introduced [3] a picture to prove a point, which is generally seen as being against policy. Furthermore, that shows IMO that you disregard a central point about Wikipedia: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a showcase for the freedom of speech. Encyclopedias are read by ordinary people, right? Let me assure you that ordinary people find such pictures disgusting. I consider myself an ordinary person, not a bigot or prudish or anything (e.g. it does annoy me that woman was not allowed to show a totally non-obscene picture of a naked woman), but too much is too much. If Wikipedia were a precendence case about censorship, that addition might be acceptable, but Wikipedia is not any such thing. This whole picture discussion is (sorry for the lame joke) intellectual masturbation and does not at all help us make a better encyclopedia. Kosebamse 16:40, 10 Mar 2005(UTC)

Thanks for elaborating. I want to convince you that you have made an error in your analysis of the edits. Please be patient with me and I'll explain.

Firstly you describe this edit and this one as reverts.

The first edit adds the text "(search the web for images of autofellatio)" to the Google link. It is not a revert as far as I'm aware. Indeed it cannot be because the preceding edit was the first one in which the google link was added.

The second edit is a singleton revert with an explanation and an invitation to discuss the removal of material on the talk page. It was one of two and pretty close to an edit war. I think your references should have been to these: this and this.

Two informative links to external sites had been removed by one editor without discussion. The edit description I wrote says: "Revert. Please don't delete links without discussing on talk page" If you look at the talk page, you will find that I started a discussion on the talk page. The discussion I started defused the embryonic edit war and arrived at a decent compromise.

Secondly, the edit where you cite me as "introducing a new picture to make a point" is nothing of the sort. Its purpose, which was stated in my edit label, was to replace a picture that had been deleted. The admin who deleted the original image admitted his error and nominated the original for IfD, which it survived. It remains linked from the article to this day. The replacement picture may still be around for all I know, but it is not part of the article now.

I do understand that you offered these edits in good faith as examples of what you see as problematic behavior. I am simply asking you to look again and see if I am correct. I did not introduce any material to make a point--I would never do such a thing. I did not engage in edit warring on autofellatio, I acted to defuse a potential sterile edit war by starting a discussion and showing willingness to compromise, for instance suggesting that we implement Jimbo's idea of a google picture link. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I am afraid I won't have the time right now to dig into the details, but I trust that you represent the case correctly. If you did indeed not introduce a problematic image then most of my objections are without substance. I am however still worried about your attitude WRT Wikipedia as a whole. It is IMO a fundamental misconsception to believe that Wikipedia is anything but an encyclopedia plus a community that writes it. We have lots of policies, but we often lack common sense. The image discussion was IMO utterly pointless, because the presence of any photograph on that page will always violate common sense, whatever the political-and-whatnot implications. What is your position on the common-sense-versus-freedom-of-speech aspect of the debate?Kosebamse 17:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for being patient with me and listening. I do agree that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia and I absolutely reject any suggestion that this is a place to experiment with free speech and whatnot. However my standards may differ from yours somewhat. Generally I tend to be much less tolerant of gratuitous violence and hateful speech than pictures of unclothed people, sexual or otherwise, and in Britain at least there does seem to be some research by OfCom and its predecessors to back an argument that this is part of a generational movement in attitudes. I hope that my contributions on autofellatio can be seen as an attempt to seek the correct balance between the hugely diverse views on such images. I disagree strongly that one can appeal to "commonsense" in a case like this, because there is no common cultural basis for the perception that the image is either suitable or unsuitable. I and many others see nothing at all wrong inlining with the image, and we appreciate that many others (the majority) prefer to have it linked. If this were a case for clearcut commonsense, I should think we'd arrive at a consensus quicker. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My point is not that common sense would help us find an optimal article (although that may well be the case), but that we should not, as we so often do, forget that we are working on an encyclopedia for a readership outside geekdom. Under that aspect, common sense tells me that it would be prudent to respect the sensibilities of a general readership. Anyway, you have mostly convinced me; I am retracting my vote on RFA. Cheers, Kosebamse 20:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. Your point about commonsense--in the sense of their being a world outside geekdom--is well taken. However I still think we would be sampling from different groups of ordinary people. I'm not convinced by the implication that that large minority of forty or so who have voted to inline on autofellatio, minority though they may be, are significantly less representative of ordinary people as a whole than those who voted to link. However I respect the majority view while recognising that it is not yet a consensus, and as I have always said I am quite happy with linking; it's just that I think the article is so much better with the picture inlined. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think some people forget that the contributors to Wikipedia are not representative of "ordinary people" in any real sense, so that what 40 of them vote for should not be considered indicative of what Wikipedia's readership would think. "Common sense" would tell you that the average reader will be outraged by the autofellatio image. But common sense does not fuel Wikipedia, more's the pity; we'd all get along a lot better if it did.Dr Zen 23:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is precisely the statement that "the average reader will be outraged by the autofellation image" that I think is at the very least rather questionable. I don't know on what basis I am supposed to make such an evaluation. Commonsense is no help here, for the reasons I outlined above. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bring back quickpolls

I think it's time that quickpolls be re-evaluated as a solution to short term disputes between users. What say you? --Ryan! | Talk 05:22, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

user page vandal

do you have any idea why I am being shouted at in Turkish? (thanks for reverting) dab (ᛏ) 15:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No idea. I believe it's a sockpuppet of that Osmanoglu guy (see RFAr), he has also vandalised David Gerards userpage with a nasty picture. Cheers, Kosebamse 16:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kia ora! Thanks! =) 203.109.144.38 01:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks mate

I appreciate what you've said :) I might pop into to WP:AN every now and again and will watch what happens here with interest. But I need to stop contributing as this site takes up too much of my life and I have some important things and people to look after. Good luck with everything, and keep on going with your great contributions! - All the best, Ta bu shi da yu 08:10, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Caesar

I didn't! Or at least, not intentionally. Looking at the edit history (particularly the edit comments, which always try to fill out in a meaningful way) I think it was probably the result of an edit conflict. The wiki was acting up a bit yesterday, though I'm not ruling out human error :) --HappyDog 11:49, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Eh?

I haven't left at all! Can you give me some details? JFW | T@lk 10:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Afraid not. Just found that mail on the list and couldn't believe it. Maybe it's about someone else? Kosebamse 10:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Time Cube

I feel the Time Cube debate is a fruitless one. As Neal Stephenson pointed out in Cryptonomicon, when you get in an argument on the internet the other person inevitably turns out to be a 16 year old living in their parents basement with infinite amounts of free time. Ultimately the page needs a complete rewrite, but I don't have the time or the inclination to get into the revert war that will become. To be honest I'm losing interest. I got into the debate because I'm a mathematician, and I thought it would provide a good chance for me to properly exercise my foundations and philosophy of math. I've done that. I've proven he has an inconsistent system with only one number, 0. He accepts that (apparently). I'm not sure how to argue past that. Whe all concepts of quantity and measure are necessarily zero I think it's pretty easy to say that that is not representative of our universe. Ah well. 65.95.160.205 22:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not totally fruitless, perhaps, because it's now clearer than ever that these "theories" are vacuous blahblah - not that it has not always been clear, but the behaviour of our friend 211.28 proves that there's nothing to defend in their ideas. I have lost interest just like you, but it still annoys me to see the kooks promote their kookery here. The problem with the bored kids with too much free time has always been unfortunate for Wikipedia. Ah well. Kosebamse 11:11, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Images and media for deletion

• I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicite photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles ? 04:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Going on wikileave

I'll be away for a while. You can always reach me by e-mail through the link on my user page. Good luck, everyone, keep ignoring the trolls (but revert them when they do mischief), have fun, and when in doubt, apply common sense. May I repeat that last piece of advice: When in doubt, apply common sense. Kosebamse 21:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Common sense

Greetings, and thank *you* for the honor of being included there. And it seems I've just missed you: hope you have a productive wikibreak, and that you do return; Wikipedia needs as many advocates of common sense as it can get. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

expos/nationals debate

There is a major debate going on, and I wondered if you might want to chime in. The debate involves how to deal with franchise moves in baseball. The question is whether Montréal Expos should be its own article or if it should redirect to Washington Nationals. All other instances of franchise moves in MLB redirect the old team name to the new team name, and the history of the franchise is covered within the new team name (for MLB, NBA and NFL examples, see here. Some people are confused and think the Expos and the Nats are different teams. Some people don't want to upset Canadian readers.

Indeed, the Washington Nationals are not a new team - the Montreal Expos franchise has moved to Washington, and the old franchise name should redirect to the new franchise name, just like the 20+ instances of this occuring in Wikipedia. For example, Brooklyn Dodger history resides in the Los Angeles Dodgers article. New York Giants history, including the Shot Heard 'Round the World, resides in the San Francisco Giants article.

If you have the time, maybe you could chime in on the conversation there, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Montréal Expos. Kingturtle 23:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Time cube

In the future, please feel free to revert the edits of 211.28.*.*. He has shown that he does not care about consensus, only about having his nonsense included. --brian0918™ 16:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have always suspected that (he's been active for over two years I believe). Given his recent behavior (sneaking his propaganda into articles wherever it looks he could get away with it) I agree that it can now be taken for granted that any further discussion is futile. Very unpleasant situation. I am at a loss as to what can be done except locking his pet articles for very long. Kosebamse 18:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What to do about 211.28

At first, I thought that 211.28 was simply misunderstood and wanted his views to be heard. However, after actually reading the conversation you had with him (titled, I believe, "Kosebamse's anti-cubic crusade"), I have come to the conclusion that 211.28 has only malicious actions in mind, and is using a veil of innocence to try and convince us otherwise. His edits are no better than vandalism or trolling, as they are attempting to get us to discuss something that will never appear on Wikipedia.

As for what we should do about him, I suggest ignoring him and reverting all of his edits. If he cries "censorship" then we point out the precedent set by User:Mr. Treason, who bounced from IP to IP and whose ban was approved by Jimbo Wales. I think we should do with him what happened to Mr. Treason, so perhaps we need to talk to an admin. —Sean κ. + 16:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I completely responded to your comments. As for the edits I made to the talk page, I just wanted to put up a notice reminding people that they shouldn't reply to comments by 211.28. The troll food template was the only one I knew of.

I think we have a good argument for a RfAr. You tried a RfC, which brought me there. This person has been trying this for two years, and it's a minor article that we only want to rest in peace. —Sean κ. + 16:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bjoernoeya

I now uploaded some more pictures. I added a column "pictures". Hope yu like it, because I am not experienced with Wikipedia. Feel free to change. Pictures were all taken by myself on sailboat trips to Svalbard 2001 and 2002. Im am working on some pages about plant species on Svalbard. As sonn as I have completed some more, I like to add the species as links to the Bjoernoeya page. In future I try to upload under commons. Thanks for this help. Mikesegeln

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/211.28.*.*

The RFAr suggestion on Time Cube has been moved here. Please look at it, add evidence and suggestions, and sign your endorsement if appropriate. Radiant_>|< 09:07, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Please vote

Hi, thanks for keeping tabs on the Time Cube article. Please vote at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/211.28.*.*. —Sean κ. + 16:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)