User talk:Pedant/2006-08-11

This user was a part of the now closed
Association of Members' Advocates.

{{AMA alerts}}

Busking page spammed yet again

Someone is hell bent on putting their buskers friends and links from their own website all over the busking page. According to the history, this has evidently been going on for quite some time. Made-up terminology...links to buskers sites taken from the web...Where does it all end?

Archived Talk

Archive 1 2004-11-19/Archive 2 2004-11-24/Archive 3 2005-01-14/Archive 4 2005-02-27/Archive 4 2006-03-22

Barnstar, OTR & PUA Review

FYI. You may want to look and comment here: Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Proposed Changes. For your reference, the guidelines are referenced here: Barnstar Proposal Guidelines. Thanks -- evrik 18:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

unsigned accusation of vandalism

{Please stop deliberately introducing incorrect information into articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you., regarding [1]

Hypothetical

If I a car crashes into a bank, is it an "attack on the United States"?

If there were unidentified people on board not known to have been at the wheel, was it the unidentified people who crashed the car?

If the bank turns to dust after numerous witnesses describe the events as having seemed like the bank was blown up by explosives, and no bank has ever turned to dust because of a car crash before, would you describe that 'turning to dust' as a "collapse" ?

If four cars disappear, and then later four cars crash, would YOU assume it was the same four cars... and if the people who disappeared in the first 4 cars were never seen again would you state as a fact that they died in the 4 crashes, even though there were no bodies found, nor other evidence?

If the unidentified people on board not known to have been at the wheel were said to have been Mr Brown, Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones and Mr. Green by people who had no evidence, AND later Mr Brown, Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones and Mr. Green turned up in other places AND there is no proof that any of them worked for Mr. Fizzle, would it be correct to say that they were the ones who crashed the cars, and were doing so under Mr. Fizzle's orders? Would it not be just as meaningful to say they either worked for Mr. Fizzle or a rival bank? Especially if there was evidence that Mr Brown, Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones and Mr. Green were impersonated by Mr. X, Mr. Y, Mr. Z, and an unknown person, all of whom were suspected of working for the rival bank?

This is regarding your unsigned comment on my user page and your rash characterization of my good edit as vandalism.

Please sign all comments, per wikipedia policy.. Please refrain from calling me a vandal, per wikipedia policy. I will refrain from calling you a misguided fool, per wikipedia policy.

If you have any good evidence that there was any factual error in my evidence, I would be very happy to see it. Are you interested in seeing evidence contrary to your point of view? Or is it perhaps your mission to delete any assertion that it was not a foreign terrorist attack that occured on 9/11/2001 but actually a well-coordinated group of covert operations intended to justify the United States going to war against several uninvolved nations for the purpose of establishing economic and military bases of operation for the economic gain of multinational NGO's?

I welcome further discussion in the former case. Pedant 18:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Factual errors? How about some proof that it was a "controlled demolition"? Not speculation about dust puffs or steel temperatures or trying to pass off water inspectors as steel engineers. No, the academic and scientific consensus is that two planes crashing into the towers brought them down, and unless you present credible evidence to the contrary, putting in your POV against the consenus of both the academic community and the editors of wiki is vandalism. That's where I stand; Don't post here again about the conspiracy theory - go talk abt it on the article's talk page instead; I don't have the patience to debate it personally with every Smith, Jones, and Green that gets it into their head that they know better than civil engineers.

--Mmx1 18:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with you (Mmx1) that it amounts to vandalism in the general sense of the word, but under WP policy Pedant's edit would be considered a NPOV violation and a Mistake. Esquizombi 18:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, it's not even POV. The temperatures required to create pools tons of molten steel are not opinions. Definitely aircraft struck the buildings. There has been no evidence that it was the 'hijacked aircraft' that struck the buildings. No forensic work was done on the crime scene. No bodies or parts of plane passengers were found in Pennsylvania or at the Pentagon. It is not possible for buildings to fall at free-fall speed unless they are not supported. I'm not trying to push a POV at all, just alternative explanations that are equally provable as what was in the article. Note my edit was "this OR this" certainly something happened, but it is not certain it happened as the article stated it was before my edits. I'm not a vandal. One day that article will include the more likely truth, not just what was rammed down our throats by collusionist media puppets. Imagine how the articles on JFK's assassination would have looked had they been contemporaneous with the assassination. They called people conspiracy nuts who claimed there was more than one assassin in the team, but the official report said that Connally and Kennedy's wounds were from one single undamaged bullet. That assertion no longer has any credibility whatsoever. Whether you believe it or not, it is absolutely impossible, physically, structurally etc, for the towers to have collapsed to dust, at free-fall speeds, and leave a pool of molten steel weeks-months (depending on different reports) later. Why do you think all that rubble was scooped up and carted off, if not to cover up the crime? Also it is inherently POV to state that is was an attack "on the United States", The Pentagon is a US target, the WTC was a commercial target, it would be just as accurate or actually more so to say "two attacks on property of the WTO and one attack on property of the US" and attacks on the respective airlines. Of course it was a conspiracy, and of course the discussion about it is theory, until more facts are known it will remain theory. The whole article is of necessity a conspiracy theory, the term conspiracy theory is essentially meaningless, unless it is used as you use it, as a way to merely disparge one possible explanation of events most of us can have no more than theoretical knowlege of, because the evidence has been, in a literal sense, covered up. But I'm not a vandal, and I made my edit very carefully. I would no more vandalise Wikipedia or its sister projects than I would rape my mother. It is very hurtful of you to call my actions vandalism. If you value wikipedia as much as I do, you would never call a fellow editor a vandal without clear-cut reasons. One day you will look back on this and regret your behavior, but today, you are behaving as a misguided bully. Pedant 19:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The debate over the proper wording has been discussed ad-nauseum on that article's talk page. To edit the intro to such a prominent and controversial topic without even commenting on the talk page (I won't assume anything about whether or not you read it), does constitute vandalism. It's not just POV of your content, which would be excusable if there was some debate on the talk page. It's not like you're a newb that doesn't know about the talk page and consensus. You have been here long enough to know better. Anon putting in POV is NPOV violation. Established user defying consensus and DAILY discussion on the talk page - vandalism.

As for the "attack on the US" hair-splitting, attacks on prominent institutions is typically considered an attack on the nation, particularly as they were on different types of installations. It clearly wasn't just military or financial concerns they were targeting, so the common thread is bigger than just financial or military. Unless you believe that the attacks weren't coordinated or had one backer? --Mmx1 19:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I definitely do believe that the attacks were coordinated. I also think that it's inconceivable that the attacks were not also coordinated with the 'training exercises' that put the US Air Force in a position of not being able to respond to the attacks. Another part of the coordination must have been the numerous violations of standing orders and procedures in place for response to just such an emergency as aircraft hijackings. The lack of investigation and the hasty cleanup of the crime scene seems to be obviously of a part of the coordination of the attack. Unless you propose that Al-Quaeda has moles in place at numerous key positions in the Air Force, at NORAD, in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the Secret Service, at the NTSB etc, then it seems an untenable position to state unequivocally both that the attacks were by agents of Al-Quaeda, and that they were attacks ON the USA, since the above key positions are WITHIN the United States. If I set my house on fire because the asbestos in it would be too costly to remove, shortly after increasing the insurance coverage, would you say that I was attacked? NO. If in the process of investigating the collapse of my house it was noted that during the fire, the support structure had been intentionally removed, would you ignore that? One day you will look back on this exchange of comments, and realize that you were willingly closing your eyes to what should have been glaringly obvious.

I was not 'putting in POV' as you put it, I was removing it. Where is the credible investigation that shows that the aircraft which were ostensibly hijacked were the aircraft that hit the WTC, and the Pentagon? Where is the documentation of what hit the Pentagon, being as how it is one of the most well-surveilled military installations in the world? Why is there no picture of a commercial airliner approaching the Pentagon. I watched the second plane/tower collision live on television, and I saw no Airline markings. Hundreds of cameras caught the impact, yet not one of them shows the slightest trace of commercial airline markings. It is just assumption that the missing 4 craft were the same as the ones that crashed. Assumption is not neutral point of view and is not encyclopedic. Pedant 22:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource

One of the things you had problems with is trying to link to the document in Wikipedia. Here is what you can do: at the bottom of each article, put in {{Wikisource|Gettysburg Address}} and a link to the Gettysburg Address will be made to Wikisource: where the full document can be seen and read by various readers. Wikipedia tries to write articles about the speech, but we do not include full speeches. I hope this helps. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Queen Mary and Queen Mary.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Queen Mary and Queen Mary.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 17:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review

If you want to recreate United States President George W. Bush speech to Congress on September 20 2001 take it to deletion review, don't repost it. Given that it is at September 11, 2001: Attack on America, what's the need, though? WP has a policy Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. Esquizombi 19:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

afd

Hi, i would like yo inform you of this afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People questioning the official American 9/11 account--Striver 16:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from notifying me about stuff like this, if Wikipedia as a whole can't be trusted to keep good articles and delete bad ones, then why are we even working on it? Plus messages like this look like trying to skew the vote 'your way'. But thanks for thinking of me. If that article is kept, it will need a lot of work to bring it up to standard.Pedant 18:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

unblock

I'm blocked when editing from work... open proxy, I think it changes fairly often, is there some way to remove the block so I may also contribute while at this computer? Thanks, whoever looks at this. Pedant 05:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't unblock open proxies. Your account should be usable from other IP addresses, we also cannot prevent blocks of IPs impacting individual accounts. --pgk^(talk) 11:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks anyway, I guess that makes sense. So, even if I'm logged in I am still blocked from editing from that ip address. Seems like it should be possible, but I guess when I'm at work I should be playing games rather than wasting my time editing an encyclopedia.Pedant 17:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for Advocacy

A Wikipedia entry that I have worked very hard on for over a year is under attack by some editors who seem to know very little about the subject: Roy Dupuis and who seem to be working in concert with one another. More than three editors (or people using three different identities) are working in concert continually deleting information from the entry and reverting it back to their reduced information whenever I try to edit and replace the information. Often I have replaced external links with internal Wikipedia links, and yet they are still deleting all the content. Some of them are also engaging in unwarranted and unethical personal attacks, which I tried to defend myself against before I read the Wikipedia: Personal attacks policy. Now I see that their methods are completely at odds with Wikipedia: Editing policy and indeed violations of it. What they are doing is also contrary to the Wikipedia: External links policy, which I have tried to adhere to in my most recent editing of the entry, after discovering this olicy (today). Please help me to maintain the integrity of the entry that I have worked so hard to produce for Wikipedia readers. Thank you.

Hi. I could use some help in figuring out how to deal with another user. I have already requested cabal mediation but I have come to the conclusion that its chance of success is slim. Essentially the underlying issue is that the person I am in a dispute with absolutely will not consider dropping his/her advocacy. I have been extremely patient and even been willing to give his points way too much creedence in the article. This is possibly because I personally agree with him/her to a large degree (not that it matters, that is my point). I am letting mediation proceed which has so far resulted in an unqualified conclusion by the mediator that said user is way out of bounds and should stop his/her behavior. Another user has correctly flagged the page of dispute as NPOV check. I need your help to figure out the best, most appropriate and fastest way to resolve this. I think I should elevate it to arbitration immediately but I do not know how. What do you think?

Page of dispute: mass-to-charge ratio, another now deleted page m/z misconception was absolutely blatant advocacy.

Mediation page: [2]

I think the mediator summarized the problem better than me. Probably I spent too much time engaging with the user, thinking that he was simply mistaken about a few technical issues. He simply has an agenda.

Thanks, --Nick Y. 00:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Rusty Harding

The last version before deletion of the Rusty Harding article can be found at User:Pedant/Rusty Harding. If that does not meet your needs, ask for more and I will help. ➥the Epopt 06:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: request for advocacy

I was hoping you could point me in the right direction and give me some advice on how to deal with the situation. However the mediation has taken some positive turns. Blatant advocacy has given way to more factual arguments, that are tractable and within reason to be discussed.

--Nick Y. 22:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The discussion has come yet again to the point of clarity that Kehrli et al have made it clear that they intend to advocate at all costs. They have gone into edit war mode even though the moderator had indicated that they were being biased by including such iunformation disproportionately. Another user Kmurray who gave the article the POV check label has given some very productive observations and suggestions. Prompted by the suggestion of Kmurray I have decided to try to abandon the article and disbiguate to a more mass spectrometry specific article, leaving the physicists to deal with the POV pusher and letting Kehrli have his soap box to the detriment of the physicists. Kehrli is not happy with this because he wants to push his POV on mass spectrometrists and his whole argument about physics was just rhetoric and has edited out disambiguation. I really think it is time for some sort of authority to set Kehrli straight as to the purpose of wikipedia. His behavior is abusive and biased. If you could at least let me know where to report this to a body of authority that will be binding and can take disciplinary action. See for yourself at Talk:Mass-to-charge ratio

Thanks,

--Nick Y. 21:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, if it's come to the point that the small group of editors involved cannot settle the issue collegiately, you could consider turning the matter over to the community at large, to see if there is some consensus available at that level. Wikipedia:Requests for comment is the page to start with that, read what's on that page, (especially "Alternatives to RfC" and if you think it would be appropriate, file a Request for Comment there, following the intructions on that page. Take your time and try to express yourself as clearly and succinctly as possible in your request, and provide links to whatever you need to make your point quickly. Once you file the RfC, don't get wrapped up in the discussion, just file the request and let everyone else comment on it, that will help you avoid appearing to be argumentative. You and I both should avoid interfering with the request for comment process until comments are finished, then we go on from there, based on the community's consensus... Let me know if you need anything more. Pedant 20:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Your account at Wikisource

Your old acount is at oldwikisource:User:Pedant. When the language domains split up everyone had to re-sign up for new accounts at the new lang domain even though their contributions had been moved over. This is why even though s:User:Pedant has contributions the account did not exist. Once you sign up for that name (if you haven't already) all you contribs will be automatically reattributed. Feel free to ask me any further question here or over there. Sorry for the confusion, but there were a lot of side-effects from the language split--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Advocate Team Re: RfC Woggly

I am presently coordinating a team of advocates re: my RfC for harassment by user:woggly. I welcome you to be a member. Simply read the RFC lodged against me by user:woggly and the RFC which I have filed against her. It's really simple stuff when all of her harassment and my (and others) various attempts to resolve any issues are in black and white. Please also view the talks pages where Woggly admits to harassment and infers that she will not cease. Thank you for your consideration. Best wishes, IsraelBeach 19:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't do team advocacy, the way I work is to explain, to the person I am advocating for, the best way to accomplish what they are trying to accomplish, or explain to them why its not something they should be doing, I don't gang up on people. People I advocate for end up being people who don't need advocates. Pedant 05:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Persian people#History

Could you take a look at the first sentence in this section? It claims that Persians are descendants of some "Aryan tribes" migrating from Central Asia. Sounds like outdated racial theories to me. The same source (Britannica) says Persians are of mixed ancentry, but when I try to add this in people remove it. I don't think this is consistent with WP:NPOV. Could you take a look at this and leave a comment? Thanks, Aucaman^Talk 07:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to decline this, the paragraph as it looks now seems to cover the facts, their '

intermarriage to indigenous peoples' covers the mixed ancestry part, all in all it looks fine to me. If you are still having a problem, give me a citation for whatever info you want to put into the article and I'll look it over. Pedant 05:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I explain it here. It's not just about the Elamites. The history of Persians and their interaction with other groups certainly doesn't stop at 2,000 B.C. Even if you assume there has only been significant intermarriage with only the Elamites, I still don't see how that justifies saying modern Persians are descendants of Aryan tribes and no one else. Aucaman^Talk 05:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Please explain this

Please explain to me why you have reverted edits on my talk page to a previous state. Pedant 04:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the same comment was actually cross-posted to about 50 user talk pages at the same time, which is generally thought of as spamming. To prevent the "benefits" of spamming like this often the changes will be reverted. Since there were so many I unfortunately couldn't add a very descriptive edit summary, which admittedly would have been more helpful. If you have any other questions let me know. - cohesion 04:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I see you've asked User:Cohesion about it... I feel that what he did was to revert what he feels was spamming w/o actually investigating the facts of the case. What User:Aucaman did was to contact a number of users [closer to 30 than 50 as Cohesion claims], who have previously shown interest in the subject [which in and of itself disqualifies the charge of "spamming"]. I reverted a bunch of Cohesion's deletions of Aucaman's efforts to engage others in the ongoing discussion [although not all of them, since I don't have that kind of spare time], and your talk page happens to be one of those I got to. I've encouraged Cohesion to undo the rest of his reversions [which I've made clear elsewhere, I regard as patent vandalism]. What brought your page to my attention was the fact that Cohesion reverted Aucaman's seeking input on my user_talk page [long after I'd already responded to Aucaman, as it happens], and I looked into it and found that (a) his doing so was not as a result of anything other than his own judgment and (b) that his having done so was completely unwarranted under any realistic interpretation of "spamming". That's it in a nutshell. I don't hold any ill-will against Cohesion, I just think he made an incredibly uninformed decision and acted rashly w/o bothering to inform himself, which is why I went ahead and started reverting his rollbacks. Cheers, Tomer^talk 07:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories in Userspace

Hi! I noticed that in your scratchpad / draft / alternative article User:Pedant:Voting you have the categories still activated, so it's showing up in Category:Politics, Category:Elections, and a few others. Could I suggest that you deactivate them (by putting a colon before 'Category' in the link) until such time as the article is in the mainspace rather than the userspace? (As per WP:CG, "If you copy an article to your user namespace (for example, as a temporary draft or in response to an edit war) you should decategorize it".) Cheers, Ziggurat 02:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi again - it looks like someone else did just that and removed the other categories (the one that's still there is coming from the NPOV template at the top, I'm assuming). Normally I would just change it myself, but I prefer to let people know (professional courtesy, and all that) so no-one accidentally repeats the same prob. Regards, Ziggurat 22:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I need help

I got your name from the advocacy page. I'm new to wikipedia and im working away on articles, but there is one user that is continually on my back about trivia minor things (totally unconnected to articles or factual accuracy) which he never challenges anyone else on. I think im being wikistalked by him because I edited some of his articles to a more accurate standard, or whatever. I really dont know. He just cannot be reasoned with and is just making a nuisance of himself. Really dont know what to do. Here he is at the bottom of my talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fluffy999

I tried to get two Irish admin/people involved Jtdirl & Jdorney but they must be away from their machines right now.

Fluffy999 16:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Moving-camera.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Moving-camera.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Please help stop personal attacks

I do not know what else to do. Midlgey and Oliver (mostly MIdgely) continue an onslaught of personal attack. I created an Rfd on an article they like, and they have done nothing but mallign me, rather than address the merits of the Rfd. Midgley has called for a premature closure of the RFd, citing the brawl, that he created. Administrators have asked him to be civil. I have asked and posted numerous requests for civility and nothing works. It is becoming extremely stressful. I have had emails from users I don't even know telling me that this is Midgley's style - to bully and intimidate users who do any thing he doesn't like, and to run them off WIkopedia. Can't someone do something about this? I do not deserve this kind of attack. Gfwesq has also been the target of attacks. Midgely accused Gfwesq of being the same person as me (we are not the same), and Ian (an administrator) knows that we are not the same, since Gfwesq proved it to him by giving him his bar license number. Then Midgely accused me of deleting his 'vote', and used that to launch yet another diatribe against me. Ian explained to him that he inadvertantly moved it to the talk page. Still, MIdgley continues to harass - and this is nothing short of harassment. I am still relatively new to editing Wikopedia (several months now)., and have not come across this kind of vitriol. I can't believe that no admin has yet taken more action than warnings. Please help. THis is the article and Rfd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Patrick_Maxwell MollyBloom 00:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have filed a complaint. Nothing has been done, so far. There are pages and pages of attacks, which this user seems adept at doing. From what I can see, many have complained about him and nothing has ever been done. As far as spelling, I proabably made a typo on Wikopedia. I am not worried about it, nor have I any particular need or interest in being a 'pillar of the community' of Wikopedia. I am not terrifically impressed with what I have seen to date. Thanks, though.MollyBloom 22:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Strictly the "complaint" is a request for mediation, but it doesn't look like a search for that. Take a look at the archive[3] (which Molly deleted from my talk page a few minutes ago, actually). I'd suggest you might like to confer with otehr admins - I'd particularly suggest Invictahog and jfwoolfe, for a specific reason, and you may find Ian13 who has been the admin most involved in the AfD which Molly has filled with invective mainly against me. The specifics given above are inaccurate, for instance the article in question is one which I called the first AfD on - far from liking it, and the question I asked when Gfwesq popped up with a very short list of contributions and joined in like an echo was whether we knew they were entirely separate. Which of course they are not, being married. There are so many edits on that AfD that it would be hard to keep track, and yes, I missed that time that my posting was removed - Ian corrected that rapidly, but both of the two above have continued to replay it. Midgley 03:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Midgely

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-05_MIdgely/Oliver Here is a list ... I do not think anything short of banning him will make any difference at all, No admin warnings, pleas by me to be civil, others comments, nothing has helped, I don't know if I have ever seen such a vicious p;erson, who is so willing to attack the person, rather than discussing ideas. He is breathtaking in the number and type of insults. You can see on the page I linked you to. I would like him to be banned, because i don't think anything short of that will cause him to bat an eye,. I'm not even sure banning would, but it might shock him, since he seems to think he is invincible and can say and do anything he wants, with impunity, and turn an Rfd into a free-for-all forum to make personal attacks. I find the man reprehensible, paranoid, and vicious.

He mediator in fact suggested I take the case to arbitration, and said he removed some of Midgely's comments from the page. I may take it to arbitration.MollyBloom 17:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I need an advocate and help with mediation

Greetings,

I need an advocate who will walk me through the mediation process.

I am trying to get the following added to the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Max Tegark is a renown physicist and a PhD profressor of cosmology at MIT. He agrees with my addition.

I am having problem with an editor by the name of Lethe who follows me around Wikipedia reverting all my edits without commentary.

I have tried reasoning with him on discussion pages, but he refuses to read what I write.

Advantages of MWI

If Hugh Everett's theory was just another interpretation of Quantum Mechanics it would have no followers, especially since it proposes the existence of countless other universes which theoretically can never be observed. Because it is not falsifiable it seemingly violates Popper's criteria for a good scientific theory. The reason it has so many adherents is because it offers numerous advantages over the Copenhagen Interpretation, among which are the following:

1. Quantum mechanics becomes a deterministic theory making it more compatible with the theory of relativity and all other physics theory to date which are all deterministic. The Copenhagen Interpretation introduced indeterminacy and randomness into science. Aside from the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics there is no scientific theory that includes indeterminacy or randomness. Einstein particularly objected to this aspect of the Copenhagen Interpretation. In response to it, he said, "God does not play dice with the universe."

2. It eliminates the "measurement problem."

3. It eliminates Von Neumann's "boundary problem": where to draw the line between the micro world where quantum mechanics applies, and the macro world where it does not. Shortly before his death in 1953, Albert Einstein wrote: "Like the moon has a definite position whether or not we look at the moon, the same must also hold for the atomic objects, as there is no sharp distinction possible between these and macroscopic objects."

4. It eliminates the special place for an observer and human consciousness.

5. It restores objective reality of the universe between measurements. Shortly before his death, Albert Einstein also wrote: "Observation cannot CREATE an element of reality like a position, there must be something contained in the complete description of physical reality which corresponds to the possibility of observing a position, already before the observation has been actually made."

6. The wave-particle duality paradox evaporates. It simply and naturally explains the double-slit experiment. Richard Feynman said, "[the double-slit experiment] has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery." David Deutcsh wrote: ". . . the argument for the many worlds was won with the double-slit experiment."

7. Schrodinger's Cat paradox evaporates.

It seems Einstein's main objections with quantum mechanics had more to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation, than with quantum mechanics itself. While MWI does not quite generate the kinds of worlds necessary to justify the anthropic principle, it is a step on the way to Stephen Hawking's No Boundary Proposal and Max Tegmark's All Universe Hypothesis which do justify the anthropic principle.

Michael D. Wolok 18:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for help on fan fiction article

Hello! I found you through the Fact and Reference Check WikiProject.

If you have the time, would you mind lending a helping hand to the fan fiction article? You stated on the FaRC WP that "fact checking, recruiting... count me in, I'll factcheck anything, drop a link to the article and a quick note on my talk page, if I can't do it I'll point out the part I couldn't do to someone else.", so I figured it'd be worth it to ask you. :)

Right now the biggest problem is the "Legal issues" section, but I have left notes on the Talk pages of several members of WP: Law mentioning the problems (which are also outlined in one of my most recent posts on the article's own Talk page), so if you can't do anything with that, I wouldn't worry (though do mention if you know anybody knowledgable in copyright law that I might not have contacted already, since it certainly couldn't hurt to have as many pairs of eyes working on it as possible!). But pretty much everything else in the article is also unsourced, even though most of it outside the Legal issues section doesn't have a attached to it, so it could really use a lot of help in that respect. My (admittedly rather ambitious) long-term goal is to bring the fan fiction article up to Featured Article status, and to bring its supporting articles (such as Mary Sue, which also could use better citations, even though it seems to have oodles of sources, some of which are even really good ones :P) at least up to Good Article status, if not Featured status themselves. Not just because I care about the subject (which I do), or because I'd like to know that I've actually managed to help make a Featured article (which I would), but because as it is, most of the coverage of fan fiction and related topics on the Wiki is rather poor, and often badly-sourced, if at all, and I want to change that, since, well it's Wikipedia, and I love Wikipedia. :)

Anyway, do let me know if you or anyone you know might be willing to take part in the improvement of the fan fiction article and its related articles! :) I'd love to have you on board! Runa27 23:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Queen Mary (ship).png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Queen Mary (ship).png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -SCEhardT 13:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I keep getting these notices on public domain images I have uploaded. Public domain is pretty clear, and I don't see the need for the photographer's identity to be included forever into eternity, when it's plainly stated the image is public domain. When a tag 'expires' the copyright status doesn't change. This I am sure is an annoyance for others as well. Is there some way of not bugging me (and others) about details on public domain images I upload? I'm not going to give every image creator's name, I just am not. In some cases they value their privacy and in others there is no need to associate, say for instance, a famous person who desires to not have his name associated with 'being a contributor' to wikipedia with the image. Is there some committee doing these? If it's just you, and you find another PD image you don't like the tag on, just delete it, but please, I don't want to be pestered repeatedly about each image. Then again, if there's something I can do to help avoid the pestering in general, please let me know. Thanks for your efforts on behalf of wikipedia, and let me know if there's some way to help solve the issues I've addressed above.(Pedant)

Pedant - Thanks for the note. The requirements in place at Wikipedia state that every image must include a source and a copyright tag. Wikipedia:Uploading images and Wikipedia:Image use policy cover this in more detail. For an image you created yourself, simply state, "I created this image" and choose a license tag. {{PD-self}} and {{GFDL-self}} convey this, but {{cc-by}}, etc still need you to state that you created it. If somebody else has released the image into public domain, send a copy of the permission to "permissions AT wikimedia DOT org" (more info at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission). Then make a note on the image page that the permission has been sent and the author wishes to remain anonymous.

I realize this may be a pain, but it may help to understand the rationale behind it: Every day we receive a deluge of photos that have simply been copied from the Internet, scanned for magazines, etc that are tagged as public domain. Many people do not understand that creative works are copyrighted by default unless specifically released to the public domain, not the other way around. By requiring a source for every image, we are able to eliminate many of the images that are uploaded from varous sources by people who think that "available to the public" or "free of charge", etc, etc mean public domain.

A record of your uploaded images is here. Please check to make sure they are all tagged clearly. Thanks! -SCEhardT 21:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's no bother, but I think we're still not agreeing on some points. Your first edit was on 31 July 2004. At that time the image use policy stated, "Always note the image's copyright status on the image description page, using one of the image copyright tags, and giving additional information about the origin of the image." As far as the current policy requiring a source, I don't think it could be any clearer than the instructions at Special:Upload. The problem with your current images is not that the {{PD}} tag is depreciated. This can be updated to a current tag without bothering you if the image description has proper source information. Thus, a bot could not change the tags because the replacements to {{PD}} are more specific and must be chosen based on the image description.

Glancing though some of your images, they seem to be OK except for Image:AlbinoWhiteTailDeer.jpg. Simply circulating a photo by email is not sufficient grounds to claim it has been released to the public domain. Please either ask the author to formally state the image is in the public domain or list the image for deletion by adding {{db-author}}. Thanks! -SCEhardT 18:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a citation for your assertion that an author publishing something with no copyright notice is not sufficient to place it in the public domain. Pedant 18:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyrights states that, "Images and photographs, like written works, are subject to copyright. Someone owns them unless they have been explicitly placed in the public domain." Since the subject interests me, I'm reading up on it and I'll let you know when I find a better explanation. -SCEhardT 23:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

A search for "automatic copyright" brings up a page of copyright.gov that explains: "As originally enacted, the 1976 law prescribed that all visually perceptible published copies of a work, or published phonorecords of a sound recording, should bear a proper copyright notice. This applies to such works published before March 1, 1989. After March 1, 1989, notice of copyright on these works is optional." Thus, unless the email is from before March 1, 1989, a copyright notice is not required to prevent release to the public domain. On a personal note, I find this to be an inane law (along with the continual copyright extensions to prevent Mickey Mouse from becoming public domain). However, Wikipedia must obviously comply with the laws whether we agree with them or not. -SCEhardT 23:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I usually just 'research a law and figure that's it' ... thanks for the info. Pedant 17:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia awards committee

Check out my comments here, Wikipedia awards committee. Thanks! --evrik 17:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

AMA Request

There has been a dispute over a nickname for Florida Atlantic University. Some people are arguing for the inclusion of the nickname Find Another University. It seems to me that they just have an axe to grind against the school for one reason or another. I have pointed out that in my experience nicknames are not placed on the university pages. I can cite the nickname page under the university nickname section and the fact that Stanford University's nickname is not displayed on the Stanford page. There is also the fact that the "nickname" is disputed, and only referenced in opinion pieces in newspapers. We have been going back and forth for about a month now on the discussion page, and nothing seems to come out of it. I think everyone agrees that we need to go to the next step in the dispute process, but nobody seems to know what to do next. As a result the discussion just continues, with new people joining every few days and the same arguments for and against appearing over and over. Some of the discussion is moving towards the hostile point. I posted a request on the main AMA page, but later decided to just seek someone out. I would appreciate any help you could provide. Thanks. KnightLago 02:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

AMA Roll Call

There is currently an AMA Roll Call going on. Please visit the page and sign next to your name to indicate whether or not you're still active. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 18:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy request

Heyo, Steve Caruso here. There is a Request for assistance by HappyApple (talk) on Hwacha. Would you be willing to take their case? If you will, please leave a note and sign under the entry on WP:AMARQ and change "(NEW)" in the heading to "(open)." When you're finished with the case, set it to "(closed)". If you're not able to take the case, please leave me a message on my talk page so I can continue searching for a willing Advocate. Many thanks! אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 02:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read to your AMA Member Statements and i feel you can represent me and assist me on my case. On my talk page i have summarized the problem which i found with user:Wikimachine on Hwacha article; among some personal indirect attacks i have received from him. I think you can tell me what can i do and how an accord can be achieved to solve this case. A wikipedian in need. --HappyApple 04:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Pedant, are you available to help out HappyApple? It has been a while since we have heard anything from you. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 01:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response at my discussion page, i have answered to you in an email. Because i met some problems in my email server i would appreciate you can tell me if you had received my message. --HappyApple 06:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've contacted them and will probably be able to wrap it up pretty quickly, it seems a simple editing dispute that can be resolved by "is there a reliable reference? (yes) then it's a fact, it should stay if relevant OR (no)then you need to find a reference first or it might be edited out by anyone... but I'll talk to HappyApple and see if it is something more that I'm not reading between the lines because I'm not Korean. But whatever it is I'll work on it. Yes I'm available and still active, but mostly I just help people, I don't really have enough time to be very active on AMA discussions. I try to read them though, as I see it things are pretty much working without my input. If there's a real urgency I might get a message fastest by email. Pedant 20:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. :-) I'll be sure to keep that in mind when divvying up the requests list in the future. :-) Peace! אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 13:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your response to my first message, i have replied back to your letter, check your email inbox. --HappyApple 16:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

AMA page

Sorry about the accidental partial blanking. Sometimes when I am editing long pages the bottom of the code gets cut off for one reason or another. Anyways, I appreciate you correctly assuming good faith, which is really not a incredibly hard jump to make considering my positive background and the nature of the edit. Returning to my wikibreak, ßottesiηi ^(talk) 22:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Sorry for the late reply, have been flat out (buying a house, actually - very exciting stuff!). Thanks for your kind (non)-award and words :-) I appreciate it a lot! - Ta bu shi da yu 15:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

1