User talk:The Founders Intent/Archives/2008/June
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
- 1 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
- 2 Red cunt hair
- 3 List of scientists...
- 4 Vis a vis American Revolutionary War article...
- 5 Scientific Mathod
- 6 POV tag on GDP list of countries
- 7 Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-12 List of countries by GDP (nominal)
- 8 Re:help
- 9 Category:Maritime safety
- 10 Autoimmune inner ear disease
- 11 EU solution
- 12 Thank you
- 13 Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)#Conclusion
- 14 Portal
- 15 Schloss Eggenberg
- 16 George Harris
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Red cunt hair
I noticed your recent changes to this article: are you quite sure that it is so specific, for its professional and localised use, as edited by you...? I don't know about it myself, but prima facie both aspects would seem very unlikely to be so specific, to me... Nortonius (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I looked at the reference, and changed the definition accordingly. No where are engineers or engineering mentioned. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 16:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine - I just think there ought to be a lot of "wriggle room" with a concept like "RCH". I like the idea of a "RCH", so I'll be using that unit myself, but I'm not an engineer or a carpenter, and I've never been to New England! Nor, I think, does any of that apply to the article's creator. I think before tying something down so tightly, it might be better to do some more research on it, and loosen it up a little first. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. No offence, but it looks like you're busy elsewhere now, so, in the meantime I'm going to revert the article to reflect its creator's intention. If you want to do some more research on it, to clarify its full usage, great! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
List of scientists...
User:Raul654 full protected many pages on the topic because he disliked dealing with a banned user who continually created sockpuppets to mess with the articles. It was discussed, and a consensus appeared to emerge that this was a disproportionate response. Several editors suggested semi-protection instead, so I move them down from full protection. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Raul654 and indefinite full protection of 10 global warming related pages.
- Maybe refresh? You might have the full protected version cached. Cool Hand Luke 17:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Vis a vis American Revolutionary War article...
I don't care. I've about had it to here with my tolerance of people who are in essence, talkers, who do not contribute substantially to the editing and writing of articles, and whose sole purpose is wikilawyering the rest of us, who DO write substantial articles, to death. Whats really dispiriting is that not that some people have gotten a little bit mean, but that people are defending and protecting someone whose sole purpose is to wreck other peoples contributions because they presume, wrongly, that the other editor is working in "good faith". SiberioS (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Is that what you think I'm doing, protecting him? I'm just trying to get the right thing done without going ballistic. If I want help from an admin, how will it look if I've cussed someone out first? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 02:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, considering, I, and no on else, has "cussed him out" I don't see much of a problem. In fact, the consistent accusation of some sort of nefarious pro-American bias has come totally from Lord Cornwallis, and he has consistently exhorted us to recognize Wikipedia policies he blithely ignores when it suits him. "Good faith" is not merely what you type out on a talk page, but your actions. He invalidated that when he unilaterally tagged the page,and has met a pretty clear opposition, nigh I say consensus, saying that his tag and claim are inappropriate and yet he continually exhorts us to respect his dictatorship of one.
- While some have pointed out that "consensus" is not merely a voting procedure or a show of numbers, it is also clear that consensus is not a cover for what is merely a fringe and unsupported view. You cannot hold up an article merely because one editor breaks with consensus. And thats exactly what is going on here; one editor, who has spilt more bytes talking about the article than editing it or writing anything about a related subject. SiberioS (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of that. I don't know Lord C nor have I dealt with him before, so my approach was in that regard. I know he's Canadian, so I tried to point out to him that American still applies even using his logic. It was unsuccessful, so that's when I came to the conclusion that a third opinion or other method of ending the dispute was needed. Action was taken by others and the tag was removed. Regards. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 11:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I started a RfD discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 June 11; you may want to weigh in there. Deor (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
POV tag on GDP list of countries
I see that you've added this tag. I was wondering why, nut did not find any explanation as to what you consider NPOV on this list. It might be a good idea to start a section on the talk page stating your objection. Tomeasytalk 22:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- You might try reading the thread about the EU not being a country. It's a long one, you can't miss it. ;) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 11:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- OK, got it. You object that the EU is part of the list. I personally do not see a problem with that, but at least I know now why the tag is on the article. Tomeasytalk 13:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not just me, many people object. The EU is an economic entity, but not a country. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 13:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I know you are not alone with this. I did not want to insinuate that. I even understand your point, because I also think that the EU is not a country - at least, under the common definition of country. Still, I am opposing your position. As you can see, I have started arguing on the talk page. So we can continue there. Tomeasytalk 13:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi - would you like to give me some background to this case? Regards02:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well have you read the talk page section on NPOV yet? Basically, I and others have contended that it is inaccurate and inappropriate to list the EU on a chart where GDP are listed by countries. The EU is not a country, but a country group as listed on the IMF source site. Country groups also include the Middle East, the Independent States of the old USSR, Africa and others. The EU is listed as well as its constituent countries. The EU article plainly states that the EU was formed by treaties, which are international agreements that are very different from convention constitutions like the US. Furthermore, the List of countries does not list the EU, and makes a note of it. Most people (per their talk page comments) believe that listing the EU is politically motivated, and by the evidence I have discussed on the page, I believe this to be true. Listing the EU is unnecessary and there are other pages where it might be listed. I believe that the definition of country should not be broadened beyond that used by the wikilink above. If the EU is listed along with Germany, France, Italy, etc...then California and other states of the US should also be listed. I don't support this, but this is a logical extension of listing the EU as a country. Political considerations and nice to haves (and what does it hurts) need to be put aside, because such flexibility is not extended to other articles and I don't believe it's in the spirit of Wiki policy to bend definitions. Even the link at Source #1 of the article does not list the EU. Thank you. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 02:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Who are the other people who are involved? Would you be able to provide me with a list. We could then get everyone together and have a mediated discussion with a stated aim of resolving the conflict. It is not my position here to take sides, so much as it is to get everyone to agree on the best course of action to resolve the conflict. 09:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've never done this before, but jashuatree in his last comment told me (after I had made my case) that "this changes nothing". So I felt I had done all I can, and no one on the otherside gave any compelling arguments; so I felt all I could do was go to mediation. I don't have a list, but in the NPOV discussion section you can find those people who made comments. I don't know them, I'm just the person who has stuck with this the longest. You can compile your list from there I suppose. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 11:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have set up a place to discuss matters on the talkpage: Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)#Informal_mediation 23:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Silk, I'm getting disgusted by this mediation discussion. If Wikipedia is going to allow the changing of definitions and meanings, then I can understand how some feel that Wikipedia lacks credibility. If there are no immovable standards, then there is no comparison. If the EU is listed, then the UN should as well as the Middle East and other country groups. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 17:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- What changing of definitions and meanings are you referring to? At the moment I am gathering information and looking at all aspects of the issue, and hoping that all participants are also broadening their mind to look at all sides - including considering why some other editors have a differing point of view. Disputes are very common on Wikipedia - we work through them by patient, civilised and intellectual debate. Well - that's what we hope to do! Mainly we get there by squabble, spit and hissing! However, in my experience articles grow stronger by going through a dispute. When all sides of an issue are examined, then we can be sure there is no bias or prejudice taking place. Or - rather - that the potential for obvious bias is reduced. Whatever - I have not been through a dispute yet in which an article has got weaker.
- However, the process itself can be very frustrating. It's important to remember that this is not a battle in which any person is going to win. It doesn't matter whose viewpoint ends up being used to inform the article, what matters is that the knowledge itself is clear, factual, useful, reliable and unbiased. Your involvement in this process is helping to ensure that the article will end up being unbiased. I would rather you remained in place and stayed on course with the mediation. Answer the set questions and sign the statements that you most agree with. By doing that you help the process, you help me, and you help the article. 17:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
yes, I promise to do my best. Also I contacted one of the ips and left the message with instructions if they really want to help.User talk:188.8.131.52. --Geographyfanatic (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- What you need to do is use a more friendly approach. They do not all come under coast guards. There is more to this than coast guards. If you have specific helpful suggestions, I'm listening. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 11:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Autoimmune inner ear disease, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.utmb.edu/otoref/Grnds/AutoImmune-Inner-Ear-Disease-2003-1210/Autoimmune-inner-ear-disease-2003-1210.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I placed a chart and an explanation on the gdp talk page. I believe it is a fair solution. Take a look and tell us what you think.Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal) --Geographyfanatic (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate the effort, but it doesn't really accomplish my intent. Frankly I think there should be a separate article for economic entities like the EU. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 19:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking on the mediation. I'm disappointed with the outcome. I'm also done arguing the point. The inertia is obviously too great, like reducing the size of the US tax code. Later. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 19:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm sorry you're not happy with the way the discussion went. Given that the article appears to be reproducing lists from three sources, then the problem of including the EU for comparison purposes doesn't lie with Wikipedia, but with the sources themselves. The problem with the article that was causing a fuss is that the article didn't make clear that it was simply reproducing the lists. Once that is made clear then we have no choice - in order to remain reliable and unbiased we have to reflect the original source - neither adding nor taking away. From what I understand we are taking the entire lists (same names and same data) from the three sources and simply transferring them here side by side so the three sources can be compared - in the transfer process it would be highly inappropriate for anyone to add or drop an economy, or to alter the data in any way to give a misleading result.
- If there's any part of that process which I have misunderstood then let me know and I'll take a close look at it. Regards 07:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The Mediation discussion regarding the inclusion of the EU in List of countries by GDP (nominal) has come to a conclusion with the following result:
- The EU to remain in List of countries by GDP (nominal).
- The EU to be positioned according to GDP rank between World and USA.
- No consensus on the EU appearing in all three charts. By convention this means the situation would remain as current - that is the EU remains on all three charts.
- Data for the EU on each chart to only be given if sourced, otherwise a dash to replace the data.
- Explanation to be placed in the lead section for the appearance of the EU and other non-countries. Possible wording: "Several economies which are not
normallyconsidered to be countries are included in the list because they appear in the sources. These economies are not ranked in the charts here, but are listed in sequence by GDP for comparison."
- The List retains the current name.
- A suggestion by Tomeasy that I feel should be carried out is that the sister articles are given the same treatment as agreed above.
Unless there are significant disagreements within the next 48 hours I will be closing the Mediation. Any questions, please get in touch. Regards10:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC) =
Hi. I'm afraid the Portal:Contents/Portals page is only for listing fully-completed portals, so I've had to remove Portal:Montana until it is ready. However, please add it to Wikipedia:Portal/Directory if you haven't already (that page is for listing all portals, regardless of state). Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Then you'll also have to remove Virginia since it has the same status. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 00:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, I've never heard of this brand. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 00:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
No offence, but you've been here long enough to know that you shouldn't leave an article in that state. There's no point blaming me - rather, you should be thanking me for not deleting the article. Deb (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)