User talk:Locke9k/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Locke9k, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Unidentified flying object

You might want to take a look at the recent edits to this article. 3 bad sources, for a start. dougweller (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'bad sources'? Do you mean the fact that they are clearly fringe sources? Thats not a priori a problem as long as they are used only to describe fringe views. Of course, they are not, but thats a massive overarching problem with the whole article not exactly limited to these new edits. Fringe views are clearly given significantly undue weight throughout. The primary problem, though, is that public belief in UFO's as possible aliens may be sufficiently broad to warrant a significant article on the subject. Possibly that should be broken off into a separate page called something like "Popular beliefs regarding UFO's", but I haven't really thought that through.
In a nutshell, I don't have a big problem with them adding fringe sources at this point because at some point when I summon up the energy to address such a big article its going to have to be heavily rewritten anyway. More bad stuff is sort of just a drop in the well. Those sources may actually turn out to be useful and good once they are put into a section clearly labeled as describing fringe beliefs on UFOs.Locke9k (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Well I've started on more significant edits on that page, so we'll see how it goes. Locke9k (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on it btw. Locke9k (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Loch monster etc

Firstly, with one or two exceptions, such as the Lake of Menteith, we do not have "lakes" in Scotland. Most Scots take great exception to the use of such a term.

Secondly, not all lochs are freshwater. --MacRusgail (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

AFD question

Well, the difficulty with trying to get more people aware of an AFD is that the red tape is so thick around here that alerting people can be considered a violation, and an admin who has a dog in the fight will often jump on it as an excuse to block the person trying to get more input so they can't participate in the discussion any more and use it as an excuse to try to drum up support for a backlash vote. Wikilawyering at its worst, but what else is new...

Wikipedia:Canvassing has the official word, but it's not as helpful as it could be.

You might try to post that same question you asked me to one of the village pumps... not, something about the AFD, but just asking how someone might go about getting more people to see an AFD within the rules. Might get you better ideas anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Weird accident

Excuse me? Which edit are you referring to? First of all, I'm not a new user. Second of all, I don't believe that I have made any 'unconstructive' edits. Third, I don't see where you have reverted one of my edits. At most, what is happening is a minor content dispute with an IP user, who has given no explanation for his edits, and in which I have made no unconstructive edits. These templates are not supposed to be used for content disputes, only for intentional or accidental vandalism. Please explain.Locke9k (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
My apologies - a slip of the mouse. please feel free to remove the notice. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, no problem - these things happen. Locke9k (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Small request

The misconceptions AfD obviously has a lot of dissenting views flying back and forth. I noticed you haven't responded/commented on folks' arguments in a while, and it probably isn't necessary to continue to do so. I think everything on both sides has largely been said; best to just let folks say their piece and see what happens. --EEMIV (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I pretty much came to that conclusion myself. Unless something really new is brought up I don't have an intention of saying much else more. Nothing to be gained by more repetition. Thanks for the advice.Locke9k (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I think this may also help cut down on User:A Nobody's overwhelming participation (or, if you prefer, badgering). At some point -- and especially with so many people chiming in -- it's just best to move on to the next article. Anyhow, have a good day! --EEMIV (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I agree. In retrospect I probably stuck around this one for two long, but it was the first deletion debate I've participated heavily in (and nominated) before, so going into it I didn't have a good sense of how I should participate. Good learning experience, next time I'll know to avoid the repetition I seem to have ended up engaging in to some degree here. Thanks for the advice. Locke9k (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi, just want to let you know I agree wholeheartedly that we should try to engage in discussions in the spirit you described. I strongly agree with points you made most recently. Thanks and cheers Holon (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Jason Hannasch AfD Discussion

I noticed that you have proposed the Show-Me Institute for deletion. On a related note, I have proposed that the article on the organization's vice president Jason Hannasch should also be deleted. Please feel free to share your thoughts on the AfD page for the article. --TommyBoy (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

List of reported lake monsters

Hi. I have responded to your concerns on the article's talk page. The article is far from complete, and entries could be backed up with other inline citations. If you have any other concerns or comments, please contact me at my talkpage. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 16:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


Glassy state

Hi, thank you for your valuable comments at the glass discussion page! I am glad that some editors really seem to care. I hope to see more input from you, as there still remains very much to do about the glass topic, including article names. Keep up the good work... -- Afluegel (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

List of cryptids

Given your interest in a number of cryptozoology articles that I also edit, you might be interested in List of cryptids. I recently looked at it seriously for the first time when I was rating articles for WikiProject Rational Skepticism. —Fiziker t c 04:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done a bunch of work at List of reported lake monsters, so I'll take a look at this too. Locke9k (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a look at that one. I've been trying to expand my focus onto other cryptozoology articles. —Fiziker t c 18:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
If you want a chuckle, look at the version before I got to editing it. It was unbelievably long, basically an extensive list of continent, country, and subregion headings, most of them empty. Many of the lakes didn't even have a 'monster' listed with them. The list could have been more appropriately titled "geographical regions of the world" or "assorted lakes of the world". Locke9k (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


I like your work in List of cryptids. It was getting too long and too messy. Maybe Okapi should stay, as it is one of the top examples of cryptids being confirmed. Regards. --Againme (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully with some work we can get it cleaned up. I have no problem in principle with Okapi staying provided that it is adequately sourced as I have described in the talk page there. Right now there are no references in the list or in the Okapi page showing that it actually was considered a cyptid prior to being discovered. Thanks- Locke9k (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Good point.--Againme (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
You have removed 13 already! We should patrol the article in the future to prevent "over-adding" to the list.--Againme (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for all the spacing problems btw. For some reason I keep missing them when I remove stuff. Thanks for following after me and making sure the formatting is right. Its appreciated. Locke9k (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank "God" you removed "fairy", I sent a message to the (new) user who included it and he asked me to live it as it was... He says some photos are unaccounted for... --Againme (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Hannasch (2nd nomination)‎

The second AFD on this was closed exactly the way the first one was, as a redirect to Show-Me Institute. Therefore we're left with a redirect to an article where the subject isn't mentioned. I mentioned in the second AFD that his notability independent of SMI needed to be considered but there was no further discussion after the first 2 !votes and my comment. At this point I would recommend waiting a while and raising the issue at redirects for discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, lost track and didn't even see the new one. Its too bad they didn't relist it for further comment; 2 people isn't much of a consensus. Well, at this point your suggestion seems like the best course. Thanks for your attention to the issue. Locke9k (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

List of cryptids

I reverted the edits by Spinosaurus Rex. People think they can add anything to the list? --Againme (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


There are some people who want to get cryptozoology unclassified as a pseudoscience. I've tried to find some sources saying that the cryptozoology is a pseudoscience but they have been weak as I haven't had time to do real research for it. I probably won't have time to do it until later in the week, do you know any good sources for this? —Fiziker t c 18:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that cryptozoology, like many pseudosciences, isn't of high enough profile to receive a great deal of mainstream commentary. I'd further argue that the arbcomm decision on this doesn't require it to be directly sourced. Its clear from the lack of scientific support for this that its a pseudoscience. I'll see if I can find anything more direct.

Locke9k (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem. Most of my work has been done so I'll try to search through a library to see if any books on the philosophy of science mention it as an example. —Fiziker t c 17:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I have also found that the book by Shermer and Linse that has been brought up to justify the removal of the pseudoscience descriptor has been cherry picked / taken out of context. Reading the whole chapter, they repeatedly note that many scientists consider cryptozoology a pseudoscience. Looking at their overall discussion and taking the quotes in context, it seems that they are saying that the mainstream view is that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, but that their opinion is that there may be a small amount of scientific work going on at its fringes. I thus think that this very source supports calling it a pseudoscience since as the pseudoscience page notes, whether something is a pseudoscience is based on broad scientific acceptance, not on individual opinions. Locke9k (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


All the way we have went in the last 316 editions!!! :=) --Againme (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

plot discussions

Progress is slow at WP:NOT, but it's there. There are a number of people who are now talking about middle ground, rather than pushing for one of the 50/50 options to win out. My advice is to distinguish the consensus builders from those who are simply trying to score points in a debate with no judges. You'll be able to tell the consensus builders because they'll admit there's no consensus to outright remove the policy, but they'll also be supportive (or at least accepting) of a re-write or move. You'll be able to recognize the debate club if they're still trying to argue about whether to keep it at all.

Don't take the WP:Bait. If you see a comment from someone who is trying to stonewall or filibuster the discussion -- inclusionist or deletionist -- try to ignore it. If you absolutely can't, my advice is to keep your reply to one line or less, explaining that you don't think their viewpoint has consensus, and/or advising them to focus on something that does.

Focus on editors who show at least *some* open-mindedness, or else discussions will get dragged towards no consensus. (Reply back here.) Randomran (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think thats excellent advice, Randomran, thanks. I sometimes have a tendency to be overly verbose, and I believe that you are correct in suggesting that the best way to prevent debate from taking over is to avoid participating in heated debate. My only other concern is that regardless of whether we engage their debate, they may discourage and sideline open community discussion on the issue. I am considering leaving a polite message on several user's talk pages asking them to perhaps curtail their involvement in the next RFC; perhaps requesting that they make a clear statement of position and then abstain from extensive further involvement while a consensus is sought. I'd welcome any thoughts you might have on how to approach such a request, and I'd further welcome it if you would like to join me in endorsing such a request to them. ThanksLocke9k (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it would be tough to discourage people from participating, and they'd likely take it as a personal attack. But your heart is in the right place. At the very least, we just need to spend most of our energy reinforcing the good attitudes of people who at least trying to be flexible, and use little to no energy debating the old stuff. (And if we ever find ourselves debating the old stuff, delete the comment before we hit "save page" and replace it with a comment explaining why it's time to move on.)
  • That said... maybe it would be possible to find people who are willing to discuss a rephrase or a move. That is, if people want to join in, we take them in good faith. For people who are adamantly against rephrasing or moving (because they want NOTPLOT to stay exactly the same, or they want it removed entirely), they don't sign up. At the very least, we have a list we can work from when we figure out the next step. Randomran (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hose misconception

Hi Locke9k.

I just read your recent (well, within the last week) posts at Common Misconceptions. I am glad you've changed your mind--in my experience that's quite rare. People tend to stick to their guns (Abd is an example--I've decided it's not worthwhile spending any more time trying to convince him). I don't know if the entry is demonstrably a "common misconception" but it's one of a handful that I learned something interesting from when I first came to the article. Rracecarr (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. Like you seem to based on your user page, I work in the academic world in a field for which fluid flow is a core discipline. It was certainly a bit embarassing to realize that I jumped to defending to wrong conclusion on an issue for which I should be an expert, but from my view on matters of science you've got to admit when the facts show you are wrong. I've got plenty of colleagues who would make some friendly jokes at my expense over missing an undergraduate transport problem, so better that I make the error and then correct it on Wikipedia than do the same in real life :) I guess that outcome speaks to the value of this list.
For my part, thanks for sticking to the facts on this and bringing the correct view to the discussion. Without your contributions, I suspect the entree would have gotten thrown out foolishly based on invalid reasoning. I do hope that we can find a way to demonstrate that the entree is in fact a common misconception with some reference. I agree that its one of the most interesting and factually correct entrees on the page, and I have little doubt that it does represent a common misconception, if only we can find the right reference. I'll try to take some time to investigate the literature.
Thanks - Locke9k (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


You left a message on my talk page in which you state I have called for the outright removal of PLOT. I have done no such thing so I don't understand your message or how it applies to me. Hiding T 15:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been out of town for some time. Now that I look back I think that I actually clicked on the wrong user's link before putting that in, so you can ignore it. My apologies for the confusion. Locke9k (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability and fiction

Wikipedia:Notability and fiction (shortcut WP:NAF) has been drafted per the general consensus at the recent RFC to which you contributed. You are invited to review the essay and to edit it in an attempt to generate a consensus regarding the issue. Hiding T 10:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


What do you think of Feeder (cryptid)? It is also already included in our List of cryptids --Againme (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Haven't had much time to be active recently unfortunately, but based on a glimpse at it it looks like a strong candidate for deletion. There don't appear to be any references and it seems likely to be WP:OR. Locke9k (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


I live in Argentina and can asure you that people believe and claim to see gnomes... Is not it enough to call it a cryptid? --Againme (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there perhaps some reference demonstrating this? The problem is that this list has often become clogged with mythological creatures with no reference to show that it is actually a 'cryptid'. Also, its not clear that anything that people have claimed to see is a cryptid. Some reference is really needed to establish this identification as fact and not original research.Locke9k (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed.--Againme (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk: Reptilian humanoid

I think the conversation could use your input at this point. Serendipodous 13:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)