User talk:WAS 4.250/Archive 04

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
I am a patriot of America and the United States Constitution. The right to burn the flag is symbolized by the flag.
WAS 4.250 is awarded this Original barnstar for huge contributions to H5N1 Wizzy 07:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Polls and Signatures[edit]

I understand your confusion, and have put together a list of diffs whcih will hopefully clarify things for you.

No one voted in the list/poll/summary except JoshuaZ and Agapetos angel. Chronology on Feb 5 (and excuse my constant changing of tense, sorry about that): Agapetos angel wrote what was formatted exactly like a poll, had the word "votes" describing the list of "signatures" and added the "signatures" of David D., agapetos_angel, Alai, and Guettarda (as "implied") [1]. Next edit, JoshuaZ signed himself. [2]. Then an unrelated post by Guettarda, who had not seen the "poll." [3]. The next edit was User:Jim62sch protesting the faux poll.[4] Five back-to-back edits by Agapetos angel in which she changed the word "votes" to "I submit that we have" and added time/date stamps to Daycd, Alai, and expanded on her Guettarda comment (mispelling "dissent"), and wrote a paragraph directly disputing that although she used "votes" and added names to a poll, she thought it was obvious it was a summary.[5] Three back-to-back posts by me (KillerChihuahua) came next, in which I advised her to remove Guettarda's name and to never sign other editors names. I had not looked at history and so did not know the other names had also been added by her, but I knew Guettarda would not add his name, sans date stamp, with "implied" in parentheses to it.[6]. Then Agapetos angel, three posts, she reiterated the "not a poll" and changed the names in the lists from links to text:[7]. Me again, I clarified how to format a summary so that it was not a poll, and not to speak for other editors.[8] Guettarda struck through his name.[9]. Agapetos angel again stated it is a summary.[10] and apologised, without removing her false poll[11] I tried to clarify that leaving a poll in place, with other editors names as signatories, complete with date stamps added by her, is Not A Good Idea.[12]

Hopefully this will aid in understanding what happened. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to help aid in understanding what happened. Please understand I have nothing against anyone involved in this whole mess. Please understand my perception of what happened is very different from yours. We both look at the same evidence you gave above and see two very different things. Humans are not designed as logic machines. It is typical for peope to interpret reality differently based on numerous factors. Whenever people get it into their heads their view of things can not be other than the truth; that they and their friends' opinion of a matter can not have a basis in human psychology but must instead be the objective truth (we are the good guys, how can we all be wrong); then you will find situations where opposing sides look at the same thing, yet see two different things. Good luck to you in this mess. I am already on record as suggesting the solution is to agree to not edit others opinions (even if you think they have created a fake poll) and for arbcom to clarify the conflicting values of anon-editing and making choices about who can edit what based on real word identities. I see the contradiction in wikipedia rules turning a controllable battle of perceptions into a truly unfortunate-for-all-sides wikilawyering absurdity. The only good that can come from all this is for arbcom to provide a better understanding of the relevant rules. WAS 4.250 18:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

not at all - as you know, I have a great deal of respect for you and your opinion- you seemed to be asking some questions which reflected confusion, and I hoped that by putting the diffs in order it might help. IMHO, editing other's posts is certainly not a Good Thing, but neither is adding names to a list of support and oppose. Not a simple situation. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) KC erroneously stated, "No one voted in the list/poll/summary except JoshuaZ and Agapetos angel." That is not at all correct! KC's summary of events begins with 5 Feb. I would like to AGF that KC made a mistake in not going back to 3 Feb where David D signed the poll, I signed the poll, Alai responded, etc., but that is difficult when she continues this false accusation of me signing others' names after I've repeatedly shown evidence that the accusation is wrong. I did not sign names to a poll, and the post that followed that poll was obviously a summary. I posted the dates and times to show WHEN the editors voted, in answer to the original accusation that I signed other editor's names (NB the supposed date stamps are parenthetical and accompanied by what they said, if applicable [13]). I then changed it so that Blind Freddy could see that they were not signatures by removing the links on the names [14](which is not a signature, as evidenced by usage by others, such as Flo on your archive of discussion related to this matter). The fact that I made these multiple revisions and two apologies is ignored in the attempt to discredit me, worsened by false accusations based on missing (or misleading) information. (My comments about Guettarda's implied dissent were based on the fact that he rolled back the article to Alai's version that was before mine, implying that he disagreed not only with the anon edit but also with my version-the one up for consensus vote at that time-by his comment in the edit summary. This, again, was born out by the later breakdown and criticism by Guettarda regarding my version.) The problem is that Jim falsely accused me of signing the names of others, then others jumped on the bandwagon of accusation without double-checking the facts thoroughly enough (as evidenced by the mistake that KC repeats above), and then it was blown out of proportion to the actual event. Now it's repeated often enough that it's gaining weight by its repetition. I did not create a faux poll. I hope that clarifies matters. agapetos_angel 18:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
There was no error. They may have added their names to an earlier poll, but in this one edit[15] you wrote the faux poll and signed their names. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
She wrote what some call a summary and some call a faux poll in which she placed linked names that some characterize as "signatures". WAS 4.250 22:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Which therefore boils down to the fact that there was misperception by some, while others see it for what it was intended, a summary. I've said that I can see how my formatting caused some to perceive something that was not my intent, and I made multiple changes to ensure that there were no further misconceptions. There certainly should not have been violations of WP:AGF regarding my intentions in the matter, especially after that intent was fully explained. agapetos_angel 04:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Vitamin C[edit]

Thanks for the discussion, but I don't understand your point. The use of Vitamin C to treat polio is part of the history of polio as well as Vitamin C. I would assume human physiology has not changed much in the last 50 years, so these articles are still valid in my mind. The fact that there hasn't been much follow-up in the medical community in the intervening time doesn't decrease the relevance, but in fact may actually increase it. Yes, if nothing else, it is a historical curiosity ... directly related to polio, which is why I put it there. How would someone researching polio find it more easily? Also, how is referencing legitimate and relevant information considered spamming? WetBandit 14:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page edits. The instructions for how to do that on on your talk page. WAS 4.250 05:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop spamming Vit C data everywhere. First try placing it on the vit C site where Wikipedians who know about vit c can talk to you about the validity of your data. Talk to them at the talk page for the article if they delete and you disagree. WAS 4.250 05:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Now, about polio... you need better evidence of vit c impotance in the history of polio than a site dedicated to vit c (etc). an unbiased site. WAS 4.250 05:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience with my inexperience. Regarding your criticism, Southern Medicine & Surgery is not a site dedicated to vitamin c. And ... why would this information not be an interesting part of the history of polio? What do you mean by "better evidence"? Two medical doctors claim to have cured polio, one published twice in a peer-reviewed journal, and there is apparently no proper evidence to deny their claims. That's the gist of the text that you removed without any references of your own. I think that's the main problem here -- addition of text requires references, but deletion does not. You haven't shown me that this information is not interesting and relevant to the history of polio. In my mind, obscurity isn't synonymous with irrelevance. WetBandit 14:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability to understand what is required for references. See Wikipedia:Trivia and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for importance/noteability/balance. Your sources are orthomed and seanet both unreliable as sources of unbiased data on vitamin C. WAS 4.250 15:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Southern Medicine & Surgery[edit]

So, you would be OK with the reference to Southern Medicine & Surgery without the hyperlink? WetBandit 15:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of Southern Medicine & Surgery. Why would someone else have their copyrighted material on thier web page instead of them? Out of business because they are also unreliable? You now have a reputatin as someone who wishes to put vit c anywhere they can get away with, and so the question leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If vit C is important to polio history, why can't you find a source on the web that says so? This isn't a game. We want a great free encyclopedia for everyone and lots of people spam us with stuff, so please understand we are wary. By the way, I take a vit c pill or two every day with other vitamins. Have since 1985. WAS 4.250 15:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I see. So you don't think this information is interesting, and you believe it's not interesting to others as well (degrades the signal-to-noise ratio of wikipedia, so to speak). Also, you imply that wikipedia's policy is that references (to periodical literature) should be given only for peridicals in current publication, correct? WetBandit 16:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Without a believable reference it is not yet even information. I'm not going to judge data I don't have. As for what is a believable reference, read the wikipedia policy on verifyability I provided. WAS 4.250 16:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your non-judgemental stance. I gather from your comments that you don't have any idea whether my reference exists or not, you won't bother to find out yourself, and that it's my burden to show that it does exist. (Google actually brought this up, so maybe that gives you a quick gut check on it.) I would like to point out that we are not necessarily discussing whether this reference is describing a cure for polio (OK, maybe that's also debatable), but whether it's an interesting part of the history of polio (after all, I added it in the history section). You really don't think this information is interesting? WetBandit 17:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This gives me concerns. 90% of google hits disappear when I remove those that also include the word "vitamin". WAS 4.250 21:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


WAS 4.250, H5N1 is a fine article! Have you or anyone else looked for info re: fetal loss or birth defects associated with H5N1 or related. I'm looking. Let me know if you already looked. Thanks, FloNight talk 08:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would you be looking for that? WAS 4.250 08:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Literal or figurative question? Or both? FloNight talk 15:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm an old retired guy with time on my hands, why not tell me both? WAS 4.250 15:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
My response to a figurative question would be long and off topic, so let's skip it. My broad yet short response to literal question is intellectual curiosity. I'll get more specific if you need to know; meaning, if I find something to put in the H5N1 article. Okay? FloNight talk 21:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
OK WAS 4.250 21:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, your commments are on target. I got involved with chasing vandals. If you have to revert, I won't take it personally, but I can't continue editing right this minute. As it stands, I will probably oppose at WP:FAC on the grounds that the article is repetitive and mostly on the subject of general influenza viruses rather than on h5n1. But again, thanks for your comments. Kaisershatner 21:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You say "right this minute". I was thinking of counting on you more days than not to edit H5N1 and thus each of us get in at least one back and forth every 48 hours or so. Faster is ok, but I wasn't thinking of doing it all right now ! WAS 4.250 21:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; editing may be a bit lighter in the next few days but I would definitely be interested in further work with you on these articles. Best, Kaisershatner 17:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, planning to resume some editing here today. This business of "species called influenzavirus" is confusing to me, I think "subtype of a virus called influenzaevirus" makes more sense. Hope that's ok. And thanks for your note about adminship. Kaisershatner 15:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


In the influenza article, you moved this section to discussion:

Because of concerns ranging from verifyability to understandability I moved the following from the article to here:

Preclinical research with Morpholino antisense oligos has shown efficacy of the antisense against influenzavirus in cell cultures (Ge Q, Stein D, Kroeker A, Iversen P, Chen J. Inhibition of influenza A virus production in vero cells with morpholino oligomers. Program and abstracts of the 44th Interscience Conference of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; October 30-November 2, 2004; Washington, DC. Abstract V-1268.). WAS 4.250 23:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability of the citation is straightforward, as I cited a published work from the American Society for Microbiology. This information will allow interested folks to follow up on the Morpholino antisense technique for inhibiting viral replication. Research employing this technique for Influenza knockdown is ongoing in several labs. The Morpholino technique for gene knockdown is cited in well over 1000 peer-reviewed publications. I suggest that the comment you removed should be returned to the posted influenza article. Jon Moulton

Response (in a minute) at Talk:Influenza. WAS 4.250 21:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your good wishes for making money. I do intend to feed and educate my daughters. The company I work for, Gene Tools LLC, cannot market Morpholinos as therapeutics; that is the IP domain of another company, AVI BioPharma Inc. However, I am an advocate for the technology, which holds the promise of broad antiviral applications, anticancer applications and soon-to-begin clinical trials for Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy.

Details of Morpholino antisense are in the Morpholino article; I originally only posted information directly relevant to influenza and verifiable in the scientific literature. Per your request, I offer more support here for efficacy of Morpholinos against influenza. I originally hesitated to bring in sources such as conference reviews or company press releases, as I prefer to rely on more traditional scientific citations. I think a shorter mention of the studies with pointers to articles with more information is more appropriate. However, the following expanded discussion does present a clearer view of the potential of this technology specifically as an influenza therapeutic.

Preclinical research with Morpholino antisense oligos has shown efficacy of the antisense against influenzavirus in cell cultures. Cultures of African green monkey kidney cells (vero cells) were pretreated with Morpholino antisense oligos conjugated with arginine-rich peptides to enhance penetration of the oligos into the cytosol. Targeting translation-blocking Morpholinos against the nucleoprotein 1 mRNA or one of the polymerase protein mRNAs caused 2-3 log10 reductions in influenzavirus titer three days post-infection. When Morpholinos were administered post-infection, less antiviral activity was measured. (Frederick G. Hayden, MD, Influenza in the United States and Around the World,, see "novel therapeutics" section)(Ge Q, Stein D, Kroeker A, Iversen P, Chen J. Inhibition of influenza A virus production in vero cells with morpholino oligomers. Program and abstracts of the 44th Interscience Conference of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; October 30-November 2, 2004; Washington, DC. Abstract V-1268.) AVI BioPharma reports that when tested against several influenza strains by several independant laboratories, Morpholino oligos have suppressed viral replication and in one cse both replication and transcription were repressed. Co-administration of several Morpholino sequences caused as much as eightfold improvement in antiviral activity ( Jon 24 March 2006

Response at Talk:Influenza. WAS 4.250 23:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ham's tissue culture medium[edit]

Hello! With regard to Ham's tissue culture medium, have you considered that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information? In particular, I fail to see how a detailed recipe for this solution is encyclopedic information, so I've deleted it. Would you consider adding encyclopedic information to the article, e.g. what this solution is and what it is being used for (apart from growing cells in general)? Best, Sandstein 21:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Re-replied on my talk. Sandstein 07:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Why I reverted the deletion of material by User:WAS 4.250[edit]

This user wrote:

this is nonsense if "1" is displayed typing in "5" results in"15"

The behavior of the hypothetical calculator in this thought experiment was described: If a number appears in the display and another number is entered, then the product of the two numbers appears in the display. That means if "2" is displayed, and you enter "5", what will appear in the display is 10.

How actual calculuators behave is not relevant.

But you are wrong about how actual calculators behave as well: If a normal calculator returns "2" as the answer to a problem, and you press the key that says "5", you will not see "25"; you will just see "5". That's also how the calculator in the thought experiment behaves; it is only after the "ENTER" key is pressed that you see the number that results from multiplying.

You CLEARLY have not carefully read the material that you removed. Michael Hardy 01:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar: thanks[edit]

Thanks for my shiny barnstar, I shall wear it with pride, and do my best to continue to deserve it! William M. Connolley 12:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

HTML ref style[edit]

HTML reference tags are not the usual method for citing references on Wikipedia, the preferred method is the Template:ref and Template:note. Because of this I've reverted most of your recent HTML ref tags at Evolution, my apologies. There are some still remaining you added earlier apparently. Would you mind cleaning these up back to their original external link format or using the proper ref and note templates? Thanks. Sorry about this. FeloniousMonk 19:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I just found m:Cite.php and see this changed in the last few months, so go ahead and revert back to your citation style. FeloniousMonk 19:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I reverted myself at Evolution. Carry on. FeloniousMonk 19:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Citing sources WAS 4.250 20:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It took me a while to realize that the ground had shifted beneath my feet. Thanks for your patience. FeloniousMonk 00:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Re Cogito Ergo Sum[edit]

Good point... I agree with you, just trying to keep it relatively simple! I can't remember who, but some 19th century philosopher I read (I think it might be Nietzsche) attacks Descartes on similar grounds, i.e. that he's not entitled to posit an "I" doing the thinking. IMO, his conclusion simply doesn't follow from his premises (i.e. "cogito ergo sum" does not follow from "dubito ergo cogito"). All we can really say, as you seem to suggest, is that "thinking is going on". In fact, modern philosophers, such as Simon Blackburn, have gone even further: if we are going to doubt everything as Descartes suggests, we should doubt logic itself, and then we can literally just go "bla bla gurgle gurgle". I try not to think too much about problems like these though, they depress me! Much more fun believing grass is really green, etc.! :). Mikker (...) 21:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC) (ps. have you seen Talk:Evolution#Evolved_to_evolve?)

Yes, I saw Talk:Evolution#Evolved_to_evolve. Thanks. I'm glad you liked it. I would prefer that all of wikipedia consisted of nothing but quotes, but I know I'm alone in that. WAS 4.250 21:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that "we should doubt logic itself" as logic tells us nothing about the real world in the first place. Logic (and I include the whole of math in "logic") is simply talking about talking in a self consistant manner, nothing more. If the universe is a complex self consistent entity then creating a complex self-consistent way of talking about it makes sense. Since doing so produces results we want, I conclude the universe we deal with acts as if it were complex and self consistant. "Acts as if" is as close to knowing reality as it gets. WAS 4.250 21:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Nothing but quotes!? :) Wow... why is that if I may ask? And on logic: I accept your point about self-consistency, but I have to disagree about logic not telling us anything about the real world. Sure logic by itself cannot tell us anything, but logic takes some things we do know and lets us infer things we do not know. I.e. four lions enter a cave. Three come out again. How many lions are left in the cave? (and, is it safe to go in?). My example is simplistic, but you get the point. Blackburn's point (and I think Quine might have said something similar) is that we cannot be certain logic "tracks truth" if we doubt everything. Let me explain: Kant made a famous distinction between the "subjective causes of belief" (the set of reasons that convinces person X to believe that p) and the "objective ground of belief" (the actual truth status of proposition p). Of course, the former may diverge from the latter; and, in fact, we have no 'direct access' to the latter - we only experience the former. In other words, we can (and do) experience subjective certainty in the absence of objective grounds. Blackburn extends this to logic: when a human being sees "If A then B, A,"; it seems impossible not to conclude "therefore B" but the mere psychological impossibility of B not following given the premises is not sufficient evidence because the subjective causes may diverge from the objective grounds. In other words, on this view, to assert logic is indubitable is to fallaciously infer a ontological conclusion from premises concerning human epistemology (as Colin McGinn has put it). Took me months to get my mind around this argument... Mikker (...) 00:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like the basis of Wikipedia to be a set of ever increasing sources that are mined for an ever increasing set of quotes that are organized in a database and presented by an increasingly intelligent artificial intelligence in response to questions or topics presented to it. I think we will get to the equivalent of that eventually in the roundabout way neccesitated by the fact that the engine for this is human motivation in imperfect selfish ill informed humans (refering to all mankind here). As for now, I think the greater the percentage of wikipedia that is quotes the better as it helps eliminate original research. In a sense, everything added other than quotes is original research to some degree. Even deciding which sources, which quotes, and how to fill in the database (what goes in what category) would be original research to a slight degree. WAS 4.250 00:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti[edit]

Hi WAS, I'm trying to find a citation for a quote you added back in October to the intro of Jack Sarfatti: "I do not invent nutty physics to replace mainstream physics. I use mainstream physics to investigate apparently nutty phenomena." [16] It's a nice quote and I'd like to keep it, but I can't find an online source for it. Do you happen to remember where you saw it? Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In searching for the quote, I read this from you: "Wikipedia can't use itself as a source, plus we can't be certain Sarfatti posted any of it" which made me stop searching for the quote because it is a quote of a person everybody accepted as being Jack talking on the talk page of the Wikipedia article on himself. WAS 4.250 04:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, WAS. Pity, because it's a great quote. Maybe he'll publish it somewhere, then we can pick it up again. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 05:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Agapetos Arbitration[edit]

  1. I would appreciate if you did not edit within my evidence space. The arbitration rules specifically ask for people not to edit within evidence sections. I am not going to move your comment, although I would not mind if you did.
  2. As for the question, the thought had occured to me, but it seems pretty suspicious to me.
  • Why would he lie, to implicate Agapetos and the other editors?
  • If one were going to, one would not claim to be a 16 year old kid, one would try to make oneself more firmly associated with AiG, or accidentally let it slip that one was associated with AiG. Also, one would probably act more rude about it. The editor has been calm and polite.
  • The editor did not mention anything about his connection until after I had welcomed him and told him about NPOV, which the editor had little to no guarantee would occur. JoshuaZ 03:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have slightly edited the above. I find the manner, the nature and, well, everything about the above set of questions to be without fault whatsoever. Now, on to dealing with the questions. You say "The arbitration rules specifically ask for people not to edit within evidence sections" and I have no idea what you are talking about on two accounts: one) I don't know anything about what "people not to edit within evidence sections" refers to. I asked a simple question. I'm sorry if I asked the question in the wrong place. And (two), "the arbitration rules". What are they? Where are they? Do they override IAR? I'm lost on this point of order that says I can't ask a question or I can but I asked it in the wrong place. I'm not being rhetorical here, I don't care to become an accomplished wikilawyer, I simply wanted to ask a relevant question. WAS 4.250 05:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

About the second part. Whoever it is, they supplied evidence against AiG; so maybe they wish bad things for AiG? And they succeeded at causing a bad thing for AiG, yes? You claim to know how they would act; maybe they know what you would be expecting? WAS 4.250 05:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I only have questions here, no answers. WAS 4.250 05:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It says in the instructions the Evidence section of each arbitration "If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user." (emphasis in original) This rule is very important since Arbitrations often require structured presentation. How that would apply to WP:IAR I don't know, although IAR seems to not matter much in arbitrations except at discretion of the ArbCom. Now as for lying and in fact doing so in a way that strongly anticipates what I would have expected, this seems to violate Occam's razor. First, we have no individual who has shown to be both interested in this arbitration, willing to use sockpuppets and strongly disliking AiG. Second, the hypothesis is simply much more complicated than simply presuming that the individual is telling the truth. Third, his remarks are consistent with the pattern of behavior by AiG already presented. I for one, would be highly surprised if the individual were a sockpuppet. JoshuaZ 05:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm still not clear about why it was wrong to post the question there, but I'm sure that's my own fault cause I just don't care enough to learn every single rule anyone comes up with around here; but I do respect the process, so I have deleted the question. WAS 4.250 06:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  1. "Occam's razor" - doesn't apply to human personalities engaged in duplicity, because people are driven to complex behaviors not the most elegant behaviors.
  2. "we have no individual" - 6 billion humans, and you insist on prior knowledge?
  3. "the hypothesis is simply much more complicated than simply presuming that the individual is telling the truth." True. So because it is probable therefore it is necessary?
  4. "his remarks are consistent with the pattern of behavior by AiG already presented." If he were lying, they might also be consistent. Some people are good liars.
  5. "I for one, would be highly surprised if the individual were a sockpuppet." I'm only suggesting it may be a liar. What he wears on his hands has nothing to do with it. (I'm ODing on wiki-terminology here.) WAS 4.250 06:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


Two points: first, that full citations have to be given otherwise the footnote is silly looking (what is the point of moving the [1] to the bottom rather than having it embedded, when no further information is given?); and second, that editors shouldn't change from one style to another without agreement, and if there's an objection, the style used by the first major contributor should be respected. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I made my point. You made your point. I think Wikipedia is better off if we agree to disagree. (eventualism rules) WAS 4.250 03:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Really funny...[edit]

Thanks for posting this link at Talk:Evolution... possibly the funniest ( site I've read in years... Have sent it to all my friends. :) Mikker (...) 19:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! WAS 4.250 00:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. But on a serious note I think you may be in danger of going too far one day. You have the 'converts zeal' so to speak and feel very passionatly about the topics. Just remember to stay rational at all times, and that war won't help reason. Jefffire 20:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm an old retired guy and have not believed in God or gods or the devil or angels or demons or heaven or hell or spirits or souls for more than thirty years. If I have "converts zeal", that's quite some period of time to maintain it. Perhaps a better evaluation is that I enjoy a good joke. WAS 4.250 00:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Reference Desk (cats)[edit]

Soon after I finished thanking one of the sundry users who upbraided the individual posing the (likely fictional) query apropos of her cat being broken, I read your vivisection response and laughed a good bit. Well done! Joe 21:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! WAS 4.250 00:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What's up?[edit]

Ref: User_talk:Standonbible#Question KillerChihuahua?!? 18:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Was, it is highly relevant for purposes of the RfA that we figure out what is going on with this kid. I suspect that if he is encouraged to answer KillerChihuahua's questions, it will almost certainly clear him of any problems in the matter. Please don't discourage him from cooperating. JoshuaZ 18:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

We disagree. WAS 4.250 19:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You disagree in what way? You think that if he does cooperate were going to find something he did that was unacceptable, and therefore don't want us to inquire? If all he did was POV pushed a little at AiG's insistence, that isn't a big deal. But we need details to determine this. Please stop hindering this attempt to figure out what is going. JoshuaZ 19:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

We diagree about how to characterize and deal with issues related to this discussion. Your opinions on how to characterize and deal with these issues is not my opinion and I will act according to my opinions, not yours. WAS 4.250 19:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a non-answer. How do you disagree? What do you think is gained by making Stand collectively hostile to a myriad of editors including KillerChihuahua? JoshuaZ 19:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

We agree that nothing "is gained by making Stand collectively hostile to a myriad of editors including KillerChihuahua". WAS 4.250 19:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

So what do we disagree on? JoshuaZ 19:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Why does it matter? WAS 4.250 19:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Because I am attempting to reach a reasonable compromise. It is possible that we can have a reasonable discussion about what we needs to be done and how a new user like Stand should be handled. At minimum, I think we would both agree that having hostile verbiage back and forth on his talk page is highly counter-productive. JoshuaZ 19:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh! Now I get it. I thought I was done when I wrote what I wrote. You believe you will write some more and anticipate i will write in reaction to what you write. Since I don't have a clue to what you are going to write, I have no idea it that will happen or not. But you wish to work it out here rther than there? OK. So what do you intend to write that you are concerned with my response? WAS 4.250 20:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


A revised version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much.Loom91 09:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block[edit]

full discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WAS 4.250
Now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive89#WAS 4.250

I have blocked you indefinitely based on this edit: Deleting an administrative request made by Jimbo is not acceptable behavior. I have characterized your recent activity as destructive trolling. Another example, seems designed only to disrupt. Fred Bauder 13:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

After discussion I have unblocked you. Your edit remains inexplicable. The lady in question has tried earnestly to move on. Fred Bauder 14:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Doggone it, now I don't have an excuse for getting a new hobby. I had just finishd convincing myself it was a blessing in disguise. Oh, well.

The second example was me discussing the issue of censorship on the talk page of a guideline proposal on censorship. The proposal is currently undergoing a poll. The poll already reveals the proposal does not have consensus. So the question arises, do we need a guideline dealing with people shouting "censorship" or people shouting "porn". Maybe. So I was illustrating the issue with a relevant recent incident.

Concening the article on the lady in question, I deleted two things in the article.

One thing I deleted was the factually inaccurate statement that her real world identity is unknown. That is both factually inaccurate and provably so with public accessable court documents. In this deletion I deleted the word "unknown" in the template on her.

The other thing I deleted was an out of date comment (in the article space, not the talk space) by Jimbo on 31 December 2005 saying:

As a courtesy while we discuss the issues surrounding this article, please don't add Brandy Alexandre's real name to this article. And please treat SavvyCat with particular respect and understand that if she seems a bit touchy about this article, she has every right to be: it's about her. As a person with a biography about myself in Wikipedia which is frequently used as a place to attack me, I can say that Assume Good Faith is absolutely necessary in a case like this. --Jimbo --

It is clear that it is out of date because:

  • it says while we discuss the issues surrounding this article,
  • the discussion in question took place from 31 December, 2005 until 22 January 2006 with no further changes until 3 March 2006,
  • the talk page says In private email to me, Jimbo stated that he only originally removed the info pending proper sourcing, and only asked that the name not be re-added to the article while discussion was on-going regarding this issue on this talk page (see the hidden comments at the top of the article itself for Jimbo's request).,
  • and the talk page has not been edited since 24 January 2006.

Does that explain things? 15:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

please treat SavvyCat with particular respect and understand that if she seems a bit touchy about this article, she has every right to be: it's about her. As a person with a biography about myself in Wikipedia which is frequently used as a place to attack me, I can say that Assume Good Faith is absolutely necessary in a case like this. is a restatement of our policy on living persons and could be added to the top of every page of a living person and so I did not believe was meant to be permently at the top of this specific biography and thus claim more fairness for one person than another. It reads to me like a tempory comment meant to be removed as a whole at the appropriate time. So I did. I deliberately did not add her real name, as I thought it best for one bystander to declare the discussion over, and someone else to act or not act on that. 15:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


"Fred Bauder - fredbaud at - Tue May 23 23:34:31 UTC 2006 - "Indefinite blocks need to be very well founded. I have done a few and always wonder if I have been hasty." from pipernail WAS 4.250 01:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

junk DNA[edit]

I was going to comment you on your removal of text without an edit summary ,but then I saw you did this more than once in this article. The text removed is under ongoing debate ,and has been reverted many times, please use the talk page for such extensive deleteion.(although I concur with the removal of the new age passege). thank you. --Procrastinating@talk2me 09:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to contact me. Thanks. I felt any edit summary would be repeating the obvious as the reasons were well known and well stated in the discussion page. As a nonparticipant in the debate on that page and someone who intends to stay a nonparticipant on that page, I chose to edit the article ONCE in an appropriate manner, making it better, as you agree that I did. If enough people improved articles ONCE that they otherwise had nothing to do with, the sickness of article ownership would be more successfully dealt with. WAS 4.250 18:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree ,yet for strick NPOV reasons I believe it is imperative that this section sticks.(although i'm not a creationist).

I've put the article for merger ,please feel free to become a participant and give us your view of things. thank's. :) --Procrastinating@talk2me 11:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ultra democracy[edit]

Is public burning of the flag really legal in the US ? --Procrastinating@talk2me 11:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. See Flag_burning#The_United_States. It's called free speech. Interestingly, burning the flag is considered the correct way to dispose of an old flag, rather than throwing it in the trash or burying it. In my youth in the 60's I remember hippies being arrested for having the flag on the seat of their pants. It was called being disrespectful to the flag. But it was really just harrassment of people with different opinions on the Vietnam War. America has made a lot of progress since then, even if our current President has tried to roll back some of our freedoms. We'll kick him and his friends out of office in the next two elections. Some of us knew early on he would make a bad President, others had to find out the hard way. WAS 4.250 11:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


Your email is not activated. Intentional or an oversight from recent changes in the system? FloNight talk 19:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Intentional. 100% of my interaction with wikipedia and wikipedians is totally open right here at the English wikipedia cyberspace (not mail, email, phone, pipermail, secret codes, etc.) I'm an anon and I intend to stay that way. I'm an old retired male atheist living in Newark New Jersey with a computer science/science background and was raised a fundamentalist young-Earth-creationist. I'm currently very interested in H5N1. I keep looking for excuses to spend less time on Wikipedia, but it's just so much darn fun! Cheers. WAS 4.250 20:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Drats :-( I knew you were going to say that before I asked. I want your advice about something. I'm not anon and find email absolutely necessary to fully participate in Wikipedia. If you look through my edit history, you'll see that I do not hold back my opinion on Wikipedia. Extra wiki discussion supplements these comments, it doesn't replace them. FloNight talk 21:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me asking a bonus question. : ) I'm not asking you to change your ways. Of course, you can do as you please. Different strokes for different folks. That said, I never understood why some editors insist on keeping all discussions "out in the open". I understand the reason for anon. If you aren't comfortable revealing personal information, there are email accounts that disguise your identity. Why don't you use one and let people contact you extra wiki? In the real world, all conversations aren't held in public. Why should they be that way on Wikipedia? You are a plain spoken person, please enlighten me. regards, --FloNight talk 21:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Personal taste. Same reason I eat one good thing instead of another good thing. I'm happier this way. WAS 4.250 21:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


To answer: The problem is the current thought of what is best for Wikipedia. Is it best for Wikipedia for a small group of editors, with experience in gaming the system, to attack new editors and run them off? Is it best for NPOV to mean, in application rather than theory, conforming not to verifiable sourced material, but to what best suits the opinions of that small group? They appear to be getting a smack on the wrist, which will allow them to 'beat up' the next editor who tries to improve Wiki. It's repugnant, but I'm not surprised at the seeming outcome. (BTW, did you see this?) agapetos_angel 02:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Is it best for Wikipedia for a small group of editors, with experience in gaming the system, to attack new editors and run them off? Nobody thinks this is what is best. Perfection in personnel is not an option.
  • Is it best for NPOV to mean, in application rather than theory, conforming not to verifiable sourced material, but to what best suits the opinions of that small group? No and that is why Slim Virgin and I acted the way we did and other good people here will continue to act to uphold verifyability.
  • They appear to be getting a smack on the wrist, which will allow them to 'beat up' the next editor who tries to improve Wiki. Yes. It seems that way. There is nothing to stop you from acting as I have acted in your case in the case of "the next editor"; meaning do something positive not disruptive. Or even better if you know how (I am doing what I know to do, sorry for my limitations). Stand up to the act of bullying as best you know how; but don't assume today's bully is tomorrow's bully - it is far better to turn enemies into friends.
  • did you see this? Yes, I'm an old retired guy and I have time to watch everything.
  • I have just discovered this guy: User talk:Silence. I recommend you check out his contributions for the last few days. WAS 4.250 02:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
While I spouted off in your general direction, none of it was directed at you. No offence was intended. Thank you for your attempts to assist. agapetos_angel 23:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I have not a clue to what you mean by "spouted off". It has never entered my mind that you might mean offense to me; and it still doesn't; you are faced with the possible emotional consequences of rejection when arbcom rules and among those of us that care for our fellow human beings, that hurts no matter how unjustified that rejection might be. When I became an atheist, I did not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The values the Christ taught have truth beyond the limited scope of his Jewish upbringing. (I have no belief in souls, spirits, or life after death, in case you are wondering.) WAS 4.250 00:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
First Corinthians thirteen. WAS 4.250 00:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
More appropriately: Psalm 50:9 (I will take no bull from your house) ;) Seriously, I'm glad you realised I wasn't meaning incivility towards you. Cheers. agapetos_angel 00:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the source. Not sure it if will help the snowball at this late date, but good to know. agapetos_angel 14:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Note that Jimbo says that if an anon removes inadequately sourced negative information from the biography of a living person, it is not to be replaced without adequate sourcing. WAS 4.250 14:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I noted the information on the RfA, and I'm contacting Jimbo to see if he will review. I'm so tired of all this. It's been months now. I know I was correct in the action I took (removing the unsourced content) but it still seems I'll be fried. agapetos_angel 14:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If I can trouble you for a little feedback[edit]

I got sidetracked into this 'gem' (Ahem) and we really haven't had much interaction, though I was supporting you in that gymnastics article Tasha Stewart? So, Hi!

It's not quite a party, but... You are cordially invited to pick on Frank:
(Beats handling problems!<G>)
re: Request some 'peer review' (Talkpage sections detailing concerns)] on new article: Arsenal of Democracy This post is being made Friday 14 April 2006 to a double handful (spam?) of admins & editors for some reactions, and advice (Peer Review) on this article, and it's remaining development, as I'd like to put it to bed ASAP. (Drop in's welcome too!) Your advice would be valuable and appreciated. Replies on talk link (above) indicated. Thanks! FrankB 20:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I just ripped this off my talk cleaning up for a WikiDayOff tomarrow, and realized you weren't an invitee on the above. Apologies. I've gotten some good input, but can use more. Bear in mind to go to the talk section link first for the brief, then the article. The issue is really how to design an article covering the topic. This 'draft' just sort of 'happened', as is explained. (btw- if you don't like history, don't bother! <G>)

Best regards, FrankB 06:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know.[edit]

(English corrected by WAS 4.250. If I have made a mistake, please re-edit) I read what you wrote at Jimbo's talk page with a lot of interest. If you will allow me, I have a question. Why do you quote from an article written by Jason Scott Sadofsky titled THE GREAT FAILURE OF WIKIPEDIA[17]? It seems to me that you are frustrated with the Wikipedia project, but I don't get what you really want. Could you tell me what your problems are? If Wikipedia is so bad why don't you leave it? - felisberto 17 april 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to express yourself. I have taken the liberty of editing what you wrote in order to give me something clear and unambiguous to respond to. You will note the distiction between what I wrote (which was a message on Jimbo's talk page) and what Jason wrote (the article). I believe you think I agree with or wrote what Jason wrote. This is not true. Further, I believe you have misunderstood what Jason wrote. Ask someone who knows English and your language to translate it for you. In the article he clearly indicates the title is an attention grabber. The article does not support the view that Wikipedia has failed. WAS 4.250 17:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

ok.thank you[edit]

it seems that im dealing with somebody highly inteligent than me.thank for all the understanding. - felisberto 20:35 17april 2006(UTC)


I have no idea where your going here, but I find your suggestions intensely disagreeable. Why have you not made these complaints known to me in person, rather than jumping in with such unacceptable suggestions at a juncture such as this? Would you care to explain yourself? Maybe I have no clue what you said, or what you ment? Sam Spade 15:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Mixed economy[edit]

I've got a request for a source at talk:Mixed economy for a section you added back to that article. Thanks, -Will Beback 01:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Influenza - What the hell was this for?[edit] Hey! Careful. I thorougly explained the edit I did, which you carelessly 'reverted'. Now all the edits after that have to be gone through.... :( Please clean up the mess you made.

What the heck?[edit]

How did you become so jaded? What did I ever do to to see comments like this written by you? I just don't get it... You have been the most hurtful and unpleasent part of this whole process. I really wish you could have shown me the respect to discuss these concerns with me in private, prior to this fiasco. Sam Spade 18:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry to have caused you pain. WAS 4.250 21:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It's probably too late for me, but for the next guy, give them a chance to discuss your complaints privately before airing them in public and renouncing them as irredeemable. Thanks. Sam Spade 08:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I do NOTHING in private with regard to wikipedia. Its all right here at WAS 4.250 16:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I ment maybe my talk page or some such? And you can drop the haughty tone, you've already shown yourself to be the worst sort of liar, based on your comments here. Maybe if your word (and favor) was worth something things could have worked out. Sam Spade 19:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed my mind. WAS 4.250 20:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

And mine. Sam Spade 00:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

H5N1 case graph[edit]

Thanks for all of the feedback on Template:H5N1 case graph. I'm a little confused, though. The html that you've inlined is, as far as I can see, identical to the body of the template. Happy to try to fix the formatting, but I don't understand what you're after. Waitak 04:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The last line is shorter in length, so its width is less, so on my monitor it doesn't affect the table of contents as much. Before, it halved the width of the table of contents; now it just blanks a bit of the circumscribing box. WAS 4.250 05:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Okay, I've fixed it now. Let me know if you see any further problems. Waitak 10:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Week 1[edit]

The Offer WAS 4.250 22:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Starfish Galaxy Thank you for your offer. Please look at this diff: [18]. NGC 6240 is incorrectly identified as NGC 6420. You can tell by reading the rest of the article. Thanks, David (alias Pole star) 19:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC) (moved from user page)

OK. I'm finished with Starfish Galaxy. So whadya think? WAS 4.250 22:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Spam to multiple users (13 of them)[edit]

Hi. From comments on Sam Spade's RfC, I got the impression that quite a few users, including you, were in favor of an RFAr on Sam, though no one liked, or perhaps had the time, to be the one to post it. If I were to start a request on the RFAr page, would you be interested in signing as an involved party, and/or write a short statement there? I'm asking because if people have lost interest, there's obviously not much point in my doing it; it would merely distress and aggravate Sam unproductively, which I've certainly no wish to do. I wouldn't supply any examples of my own, as I haven't edited any of "Sam's articles" for a long time (couldn't stand it, that's why I stopped), but would basically simply refer to the RfC. It seems to me that anybody who wanted to endorse such an RFAr could more or less do the same, as the RfC is so complete. It's full of evidence, and its talkpage gives a view of Sam's attitude. I believe that it's important for the encyclopedia and the community that the old dog should learn new tricks, but please don't think I want to put the least pressure on you or anybody else to take part in an RFAr if you'd rather not. Bishonen | talk 02:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC).

I understand what you are saying and why you are saying it. I too am surprised no one has started an RFAr. Sam has enemies that have hounded him without mercy and I am shocked they haven't gone in for the kill. I am not one of his enemies. I like him just fine. I will NOT sign a complaint against him, as I don't have a complaint against him. I am witness to a failed attempt to deal with him, and a RFAr is not unjustified due to a lack of trying to resolve things. My interest in the RfC was simply to make sure that I thought Sam was given a chance. I believe he was. WAS 4.250 04:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, WAS. I seem to have missed your reply, I honestly think the watchlist plays games with me sometimes. I hope I didn't offend you with my message; I wasn't really sure if you were in favor of an RFAr or not, from your different comments (as the situation itself shifted) on the RfC. But I also wrote to you because I wanted to alert everybody who had shown any explicit interest in the question of an RFAr, whether positive or negative, in case they had input. If you're interested in putting your view of the case to the ArbCom, perhaps in defending Sam, I think statements/arguments can be posted any time, either now or after the arbitration starts. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 15:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC).

Comments replied[edit]

Thank you for your comments. Evidently the 'battleground' is not empty as one of the participants is still issuing a block while involved in the disputes in the article, contrary to policy, and contrary to Arbcom's decision. Wide latitude does not mean equal ignoring Arbcom's decision, lest they render Arbcom toothless. I recognise that you said both sides 'stay away from whatever caused the problem in the first place', but notice that you did not chide the 'other' side. These are the kind of things that get editors annoyed enough to leave. People, regardless of some conspiracy theories that are purported, generally try to make this a better encyclopedia. However, it is difficult to continue when it is obvious that there are some in charge with too much power coupled with too much bias. agapetos_angel 01:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"you did not chide the 'other' side." It would be a waste of energy for me to do that (for more reasons than I care to get into).
"it is obvious that there are some in charge with too much power coupled with too much bias." Yes, everyone paying attention agrees with that, except there is no agreement on exactly who has too much power and who is biased. I suppose in the end people will organize into factions and fork this project into competing wikipedia's : Wikichristopedia, Wikislamopedia, Wikigameopedia,Wikianarchismopedia, Wikifreedomopedia, ... but I hope most of us can stay civil and work together. The project's top people have even created "competing" versions. Larry the "cofounder" has his, and arbcom member Fred has his (that he promotes on his Wikipedia user page)! Weird, huh? WAS 4.250 12:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Aye, I can understand that. Life's too short to stuff beans up yer nose. It's an unfortunate thing when turn the other cheek results in having to remove someone's foot from your arse. agapetos_angel 18:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I read your reply above. I think to myself "what???" I read it again. I think "what???" I can tell your response is friendly, low-key, humor-oriented while expressing both hurt and comraderie; yet the actual choice of terms leaves me thinking "what???" Maybe I'm just too oriented towards exactness (a lifetime of writing computer programs will do that). Well, I've told you what you successfully communicated. Perhaps that's all you intended to communicate, in which case mission accomplished. Your friend, WAS 4.250 20:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for being obtuse. BEANS relating to not wanting to tell someone something (chiding) that might encourage stronger reactions than currently displayed. Other was a play on a different 'cheek' ;) Yes, I was just being friendly, while also being 'cheeky' (groan). Seemed punny at the time. Back at ya, agapetos_angel 02:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

re: Avian flu purple box[edit]

I think that large in-your-face templates are appropriate for articles that need to be cleaned up, because the article already has problems, so adding tags isn't degrading its quality much. It sounds like what you're describing is that the problem lies with the editors, not the article. Would it be acceptable to move the message to the talk page?

Also, the article almost feels like a disambig (eg. an article that isn't trying to be a proper encyclopedic entry itself, but redirects confused people to the specific article they're looking for). It might be a tight squeeze to fit it into WP:MOSDAB, but it would at least make it clear that the article isn't meant to include detailed information on all possible related topics.

Anyway, I'm just a random passerby who's moving on to other articles. If you still feel strongly that the purple box should be added back in, please go ahead. --Interiot 03:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Support or against?[edit]

Talk:Creation_according_to_Genesis#Survey the comment you made seems like you support the split. However, you voted against. Was this a mistake? ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 17:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I am against the split. I believe you misread my comment. Read it again. WAS 4.250 18:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

since you are elder in this organization can you help me?[edit]

recently i've published one article about NOTABLE SURVIVORS but was rejected due to copyrights issues then i've asked permission to publish and the owner said to me that i could publish with 2 condition who were that i should state in wikipedia from which website the article come from and a disclamer i think the conditions are met.since there is a disclamer in the wikipedia site. now i dont know what to do?would you tell me what to do since i have the proof she wrote to me who is the email she sent to me. another question if i have problem like this in the future which person to contact. thank whatever the outcomeFelisberto21:34(UTC}

We are an encyclopedia. Capitalizing in an encyclopedia is useful. Understanding copyright issues in an encyclopedia is useful. If you wish to be useful at Wikipedia, spend your time learning as much as teaching. WAS 4.250 01:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"If you wish to be useful at Wikipedia, spend your time learning as much as teaching".i know why you are telling me this.another day i felt i hadnt done the right thing after your commentary after realizing that opinions should be respected.i want to be friendly to everybody here at wikipedia.please accept my apologies .this thing wont happen again Felisberto8May2006(UTC}

Offsite personal attacks[edit]

from thewolfstar[edit]

Hey, I just wanted to thank you for what you said under the strong throw out altogether section. I am pretty new at Wikipedia but am being watched like a hawk. I need all the help I can get at this point. I've been harassed, lied to, insulted, lawyerized in debate and blocked four times since I joined on 3/22/06. All I want to do is bring neutrality back into Wiki articles. At the bottom of my page is a warning left by SlimVirgin. Can you help me please? Maggiethewolfstar 05:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Abandon your current user name and start a new one, only this time don't do what you did that caused a problem last time. I will not help you disrupt Wikipedia. I will not help you fight SlimVirgin. I will help anyone improve noncontroversial Wikipedia articles, if that is what they are here to do. WAS 4.250 12:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Your concerns about my comment[edit]

I'm not really that interested in the poll, actually; I doubt that this will turn into some kind of binding decision. That said, I'm a little baffled by resistance to the idea. I'd vastly prefer to have an expectation that when I contribute to Wikipedia, disagreements will be civil, moderate, and remain solely on this website. Unfortunately, that's not the case. There's not much we can do about those people who choose to set up websites devoted to attacking editors here, discussing at length, for instance, speculation about their home addresses or how Jewish they are. I don't, however, want to collaborate with these people on writing articles, and I don't really understand why anyone else here would want to work with them either. Jkelly 17:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You and I are clearly reading the section differently. You wrote "...Someone in the real world calls Jimbo a name that in wikipedia is frowned on and it becomes an offense to bring up at arb-com? Absurd..." Frivolous ArbCom cases get rejected all the time; I don't understand why we should be concerned that will change. Or, if it does, we have more to worry about than whether or not it had anything to do with offsite personal attacks. I still have some sort of faith that good editors and trusted members of the Wikipedia community have some common sense, and I am not very worried about some sort of lapse in their judgement that means our losing the potential contributions of some editor who calls User:Jimbo Wales names in their blog. Jkelly 18:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious to know if the events of the last few days make the concerns I expressed above more understandable to you. Jkelly 23:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

24 hours[edit]

You have 24 hours to specify, down to the sentence, exactly how that short paragraph qualifies as "original research". Forget about tossing out the label. Cite down to the specific sentence in WP:NOR. If you fail to make your case, then that short paragraph goes back in. -- 01:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is obvious beyond words and don't know what you could possibly be missing. Try talking to other people, for example User talk:SlimVirgin. If you can get any admin who has been around a while to agree with you, I'll gladly not contest the issue. WAS 4.250 13:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

WAS 4.250, I was 90% sure this was an Amorrow sock puppet. Since it was an IP, I decided to leave a comment and wait for the response. I'm going to revert his reply to me and the rest of the discussion. If you want your comments visible add them back or ask me and I will do it. Otherwise I'm going to remove the whole thread. regards, FloNight talk 13:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Please implement your best judgement as boldly as you please. Regards, WAS 4.250 14:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Red green color blindness[edit]

Ah, sorry. That was inconsiderate of me. I always forget to take color blindness into account. I've changed the comments accordingly. (The top curve is brown, and the smooth curve on the bottom is light red.) Waitak 01:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. WAS 4.250 13:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Polar bear and lion[edit]

As I know, male lion ranges rom 150 - 190 kg, and large one 225kg, very few exceed this figure in the wild. Siberian male: 225 - 270kg, very large males exceed 300kg. Polar bear male: 340kg - 540kg, large one over 600kg. So, I think it is acceptable that a polar bear = 2 lions. What do you think? (I did not make any change to the polar bear page anyway, it's fine). - unsigned

The average lion is much smaller than the average siberian tiger. WAS 4.250 13:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


I'm curious: was this reversion intended to put the "not verified" template back only, and the reversion of the section headings an unintended side effect? Or do you have some objection to allowing the ECHELON article to follow Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices? --Allan McInnes (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not notice that it also put the "not verified" template back. If I had noticed that, I would have removed it since the sources do verify the article even if they are not all linked up to the exact sentences that they support (they SHOULD be of course). WAS 4.250 20:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
So, if I understand you correctly, the reversion was specifically intended to revert the edits that brought the section headings of the appendices into conformance with Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices. Is that correct?
I don't particularly want to get into an edit-war over this, so I'm not going to go back and revert your reversion. But I am curious as to why you object to following the Wikipedia layout guidelines. Can you tell me what your objections are? --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a matter of accuracy foremost and highlighting the sources of articles secondarily.

Accuracy:External links doesn't say why they are there - for further reading or for source or just to be a link farm. References is more ambiguos than souces but I usually don't change one to the other unless other changes are also needed. Some people think see also should be merged with further reading as they are both further reading, one is internal and the other external - but see also seems sorta grandfathered in to me. a vote was taken last year to change the guidelines to sources and further reading and lost the vote. It should have been implemented anyway, as voting is evil and this is the right choice. WAS 4.250 20:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for clarifying the problem. --Allan McInnes (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Anon, I am sure you were a cheerleader for the Abu Grahib tortures, just as you probably would have been a cheerleader for many of the other historical excesses of the US governments hameful history. You make a good, solid, ordinary German, a "willing executioner". is discussing the person you are talking to rather than discussing either the issue or making the article better. You know better. WAS 4.250 18:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[19]

Agreed. I will erase this section.

Don't I know you from WSI? You know when you sometimes see a person or a persons name, and you automatically get a bad feeling? I had that bad feeling when I saw your name, but I don't remember where we crossed paths before.

I see you are a "patriot", so maybe there was something to those bad feelings after all. Where do we know each other from? Where have we crossed paths before?

Anyway, have a nice day.

Signed Travb 04:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This was your first message to WAS 4.250:
God bless you, lets get together and take back wikipedia from the volunteer police force I loved your comments about fair use--god bless you--we should start a webring here on wikipedia (or its equivelent) to stop the volunteer police force here from destorying so much information!Travb 00:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC) [20]
Well, I was mistaken, my bad feeling was misplaced. I remember you now! My apologies.Travb 14:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright abuses[edit]

Hello, I was wondering if you would want to start a group on wikipedia which counters the heavy handed tactics of the copyright police. I can't fight them on my own. User talk:Ed g2s has began deleting fair use image on every person's user page, inspired by WP:FUC which was written by another paternal copyright policeman. I stared this page, with this purpose: User:Travb/Misguided and heavy handed tactics of some admins regarding copyright Travb 13:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost. User pages that do not get in the way of us being an encyclopedia are not a problem. Jimbo and all his key top functionaries have agreed that pictures with a copyright such that wikipedia's only right to copy them lies in the fair use doctrine should not and will not be allowed on any nonarticle page. It is a done deal. The decision has been made. Pick another battle. On the issue of Wikipedia being censored by the Wikipedia police check out User:Markaci/Nudity. WAS 4.250 15:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you're welcome. We need these things to be explained clearly and precisely, and you got it spot-on. Jkelly 17:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Polar bear food[edit]

You will undoubtedly be surprised to learn that I tracked down a reference for my statement that polar bears have been observed eating motor oil and grease, which you removed as "nonsourced suspect statement". I had to go to the Bibliotheque Nationale, get directed to the archives, fill out a written request, provide my driver's license as ID, and rummage through a box of back issues to find the source (fortunately, it was in the first box), but find it I did.

Good enough? DS 02:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for helping wikipedia be a source of sourced information. WAS 4.250 04:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Mixed Economy[edit]

Thanks for the contributions you've made to Mixed Economy. I added my reasons for restoring historic examples that were taken out unilaterally by Will Beback while I was on sabbatical which he knew and used the opportunity to do so. I also provided references for the inclusion of Dirigisme, American System (another word for American economic practice 1861-1970's), and Social Market of Germany as examples of Mixed Economy. Reason would work against these being not mixed economy. --Northmeister 18:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: You reverted without discussion. Discuss then revert if I do not provide sources. The sources are there for your perusal on the Talk page and were there originally in that to which you reverted. I am open to discussion if you disagree - just provide your sources for disagreement and we will work on it. Thanks. --Northmeister 20:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I need your help at the American System show me where I might be wrong, and mostly from the abusive behavior of another editor. Even if you two concur, it would help to have a voice I can trust will be fair and objective. I've had enough of being accused, having inquisitorial questions put towards me, of past discussion being brought up already resolved by consensus (Centennial) etc. Again, I need an objective observer here. --Northmeister 23:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I like what you did with the citations and notes. Good job. --Northmeister 01:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think American System (economics) does belong in actual economies as it was the historic economic system the US followed (also called National System and American School of National Economy by Lind) prior to 1932 in full and in part until was different from Market System or Socialism in that it did not embrace Free Trade, it did embrace government intervention through national banking, internal expenditure on infrastructure, and other forms of promotion and protection of domestic industry - it was also practiced in Germany under Bismarck as well. It's part of three basic systems - Smith's, Marx's, and Hamilton's. We followed Hamilton's advice throughout most of American History, until the free-trade era began in 1973, although there was always those opposed to it. --Northmeister 00:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I dropped all that economics stuff from my watchlist when I found out that both you and your opponet were only interested in fighting rather than interested in improving Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 02:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, sure...that's your right to do. I am not interested however in fighting as you say. I have constantly offered to collaborate with the other editor/admin but to no avail. Thanks for your time though - I do appreciate your concern - regardless of your decision. Good luck and best wishes. --Northmeister 02:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe behavior; not words. I modified your favorite subject American System in response to your request for help; you said you approved; but you do not help me to further improve it in the same way. What am I supposed to think? WAS 4.250 02:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually I wished to do this, but I've been caught up in the page moves made and all that other nonsense. What you did, I approve of. I am not expert in setting up notes however. I will continue your work though as it makes the article better in my opinion. Sorry about all that other stuff that got in the way, never my intention. --Northmeister 02:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't make heads or tails of your response. When you actually edit an article that improves it in the way that I improved American System then if you come tell me you did so then I will understand and we together can improve Wikipedia by continuing such behavior and even other behavior as has been suggested to you by me. The foundation of all that is possible within Wikipedia lies in the sourcing. WAS 4.250 02:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I went through the article and finished what you started. Simply, in all the debate with Willbeback, this part got lost. I am concerned over the length at the end. There are over 39 sources at last count. It shows the work put into it, and also everything I've had to do to placate Will with almost every sentence of that article. But, nevertheless...I've tried, look it over and see if it can be improved beyond what I did, if you would...It just looks wrong at the end to me...too many notes that is. Thanks for all the advice. --Northmeister 03:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll put all those economic articles I used to have on my watch list back on my watch list. And I'll check out the changes. And I'll reread and deal with the rest of what you wrote above. But right now, I'm going to bed. Talk to you tomorrow. WAS 4.250 03:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Interpreting raw data[edit]

I don't disagree with your statement, but I do disagree that it applies to the comments that you deleted. I think that describing the data is reasonable, without attribution, since a lot of people aren't skilled at reading a chart. The comment that I added was a correction to an earlier comment that claimed that the rate had been dropping, which is just not what the chart says. The comment was intended to say "Look, see? The line starts at the top, then goes down in roughly a straight line to 50%, then it turns and goes up in another roughly straight line to about 55%." That's not interpretation. Giving people a little help to understand what the chart says is important, and distinct from speculating on why. Could I ask you to revert, please? Waitak 00:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the human mortality variation over time and place has any scientific meaning. Saying "oh look" it is doing this indicates a level of meaningfulness I'm not sure is warrented. We need a quote from an authority to establish that its variation over the time indicated in the amount indicated is anything other than noise (from a scientific point of view). WAS 4.250 12:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, standard techniques are to look at both the value and the variance. I think that doing that sort of analysis here - while entirely possible - risks violating the "no original research" policy, so I decided to forego it. Since it's clear from the graph that the variance is relatively low, it seemed to me that it's valid to just point at what the data says, and let people draw whatever conclusions they wish. Waitak 13:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
My concern over the scientific meaning of the variance has more to do with what is being measured, as the virus is constantly changing and the real question on people's mind is what will be the mortality rate of a pandemic strain. Also the number of cases is so low that trivial things can have an effect on the numbers all out of proportion to their significance. Suppose a hundred people in China have died of H5N1 and are not part of our database at all. How does that affect what the graph means. Recent numbers are more from the indonesian strain and less from the vietnam strain. How does that affect the meaning of the nubers. The world is paying closer attention, but the virus is now spread over vastly larger reaches of the world - do either of those matter in interpreting the data? I suspect no one knows if these numbers actually mean anything. What I keep reading is how much in the dark the scientists are due to a lack of good scientifically relevant data. What we know isn't what we need to know in order to successfully prevent a pandemic. So far. WAS 4.250 13:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that these are concerns that are shared by all of us who have scientific training, and who seek to use this training in understanding what's happening with H5N1. The question that is, I think, behind the questions you're asking is this - if we're not sure how much the numbers mean, then is it better to present them anyway, with appropriate disclaimers, or to withhold them, against the possibility that people without the analytical background will draw unwarranted conclusions from inadequate data? This is necessarily a matter of opinion. The interaction between a medium like Wikipedia, and the process of making such judgements, is absolutely fascinating. Waitak 05:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes. The "matter of opinion" part is dealt with in Wikipedia by an increasing insistance on the strict use of valid sources and a lack of original research meaning we can't put two and two together in a creative way, we can only quote others doing so. This is exactly the correct change you made from an unacceptable edit that created the original research that the line going up or down was worth noting (by noting it) to a good (not great, yet) edit that sourced someone else (not a proper authority, but this just goes to show there is always gonna be a "matter of opinion" no matter how hard you try to get rid of it) talking about the change the graph shows (line going up or down). (((I'm in a parenthesis mood.))) WAS 4.250 13:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

(Dedent) Even that is a matter of opinion. I know that you feel strongly about such things. That's the reason that I chose the edit I did - although I actually felt that the edit is weaker, in terms of being informative and unbiased, than what I wrote originally. You've put a lot into these pages, though, and I thought it appropriate to honor your views regarding their content, where I can to do so without doing violence to my own convictions. I think that it's healthy to recognize that those views aren't official Wikipedia policy and that others do have the right to disagree on what constitutes appropriate content here. We can (and do) disagree, on occasion, while still staying well within the bounds of respect. (And I still think we'd both enjoy having a beer sometime (parentheses and all). :-) Waitak 13:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

On an emotional level, I don't want to hear answers to the questions I'm going to ask; but I'm curious about a couple of things and maybe I can benefit from hearing the answers. (No pain no gain.) You say "even that". Refering to what exactly? Which views are not "official policy"? (See WP:V and WP:NOR and WP:NPOV; they have been updated and I don't know when you read them last.) WAS 4.250 14:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'd read them, and I just skimmed them again. I actually considered all three in the original edit that launched this discussion. Not to be pedantic, but maybe it'd be helpful to unpack my reasoning a little - if nothing else, it'll serve to paint a bullseye in the appropriate place for subsequent comments.
  • WP:V - "the line goes down, and then goes up" is verifiable at a glance
  • WP:NOR - for something to be OR is has to be R first. I don't accept that the comments I originally wrote were research, by any reasonable argument.
  • WP:NPOV - again, I didn't draw any conclusions at all from the data. I just described the data that the WHO published.
Had I made a statement like "as you can see from the chart, the virus must be changing in a way that makes it more dangerous to humans" or some such, I would clearly have been way out of line. The comments that I made, though, didn't go anywhere near a POV. To be fair, I did point out that the the period over which the mortality dropped from 75% to 50% had only half the cases of the period over which it rose from 50% to 55%. It wouldn't be unreasonable for the reader to conclude that the latter numbers ought to be more reliable, and, in retrospect, I probably was hoping that they would. But even there, I think that I stayed at least within the letter of the law, and possibly even the spirit of the law. Your volley. :-) Waitak 14:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV#Undue weight applies as it is also clear from the graph that it is lower now than when it started. It is original reserch to discount that without a source. It is a violation of verifyablility to not provide that source. (I see your pedantic and raise you an obvious.) WAS 4.250 14:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I suspect we could keep this rolling for quite some time, but... I can't resist one more round. The statement was "the data dropped from 75% to 50%, and then rose to about 55%". What am I discounting, exactly? The drop wasn't completely smooth - but you wouldn't claim that I'm discounting data by observing an obvious trend. As for claiming violation of verifiability, if I said "The globe in the top left corner has puzzle pieces with letters on them. Several puzzle pieces are missing," you wouldn't ask me for a citation. You could look with your own two eyes and see if what I'm saying is true. It's verifiable because it's right in front of your nose. Regarding "original research" - I used to be a prof. If I had a student who claimed that parroting back my own data to me essentially verbatim constituted original thought, let alone original research, he or she would have had a very short academic career! So in short - yes, I know the policies, yes, I considered them carefully, no, I don't agree that they apply here. Waitak 15:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about confusing you with my joke about "verifyablity" That was the "obvious" part I added to make my "raise" joke. Of couse it was verifyable that the line goes down then up. It is the NPOV part that was in question when it lacked a source. Without a source I can look at the graph and say "The death rate has dropped dramaticly from time x to time y" as truthfully as you can say what you said. What distinguished one interpretation from the other is a source, which is what you provided. But without a source even tho what you wrote was true and verifyable and if discounted by who is saying so justifyable by sources not given; as it was written without sources and there are other ways of interpreting the data, it had to be relpaced by something better. Which it was. WAS 4.250 15:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


Just as an aside: Graphs can be used to "lie" and I was initially concerned with the "lie" of the bottom 50% of the chart "missing"; but the axis are labeled and the text clearly indicated "about 50%" so I didn't say anything. WAS 4.250 12:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As an owner of a well-thumbed copy of "How to Lie with Statistics", as well as most of Tufte's books. I'm a firm believer in telling the truth with charts. I certainly appreciate your comments and the spirit behind them. Thanks as well for giving me a bit of space to present the data as I thought best. It's appreciated. Waitak 13:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

HQITW is back![edit]

Hi! I'm just reminding everyone about my quiz section, the Hardest Questions In The World Section. Although many players are already taking part, the more people playing, the more exciting it becomes. Drop by the following link to play... See this link to take part in the competition! Questions are updated every so often, so come back later if there are none left to answer. Thanks, Spawn Man 02:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC). Btw, long time no see Was...

I am afraid I do not understand[edit]

And risk an indefinte ban for breaking some unknown rule by admins made trigger happy by months of playing first-person-shooter with their blocking powers against evil doers taking advantage of "everyone can edit"? (I do not envy your choices. Limit editing enough so the warrier mentality is not needed and people think the sky is falling. Don't limit editing that much and what other choice is there but to let those who enjoy first-person shooter games shoot their blocks at the vandals?) WAS 4.250 23:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me one example of a contributor given an indefinite ban for breaking some unknown rule? I am dead serious. If you want to edit those articles, edit them. Please don't take Xed's trolling seriously. He is so disconnected from reality it is hard to even make sense of what he is saying.--Jimbo Wales 04:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

See the subsection Indefinite block on this page for "one example of a contributor given an indefinite ban for breaking some unknown rule". I am less interested in editing those articles, and more interested in making wikipedia more about being an encyclopedia and less about being a free first person shooter game. As for Xed, I am responsing to you; you are the one who feed that troll. WAS 4.250 13:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Good advice. I should ignore him. I will go look now at that example.--Jimbo Wales 20:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Recombinomics re H2H2H2..H[edit]

Henry Niman has posted a couple of analyses of the WHO's surveillance of human to human chains. It's quite interesting. I have no interest in posting something that's just going to be reverted - vita brevis and all that - but I think that a reference to this article and POV is important and appropriate in Transmission and infection of H5N1. What do you say? Waitak 11:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

See [21] for why I don't use recombinomics as a source and why a certain reporter at the New York Times should be embarrassed they have. He has no credibility whatsoever. WAS 4.250 13:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

H5N1 person to person to person[edit]

Here is another article that includes a quote from WHO spokeswoman Maria Cheng stating that it is likely that the Kubu Sembelang cluster represents at least a H2H2H chain. Waitak 13:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That spokeswoman did not seem all that informed about H5N1. I read what she said and do not believe she should be used as a source because if there is anything worth including from her comments there will be a better source for it. Even though I believe this probably is the first case of p to p to p. The problem is that it appears the family is lying so peolple are guessing and there simply is no evidence for actually what happened. WAS 4.250 13:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough about Recombinomics... but aren't you lapsing into POV territory by judging how qualified you think a WHO spokesperson is? Waitak 14:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean? That I shouldn't tell you what I did? Or that you disagree with my assessment that people guessing that this is the first case of p2p2p isn't encyclopedic even if a WHO spokeswomen repeats the guesses? By the way this is the sort of thing people put on Global Spread of H5N1 all the time and I don't revert it. When the page gets refactored eventually the news stuff can be refactored into encyclopedia stuff. Part of the usefulness of "Spread..." is that people can put the latest news there instead of the other H5N1 articles. People like to feel they are helping even it is just adding "Another bird got sick and is being tested for bird flu!" I wouldn't want to curb their enthusiam. Quite in contrast to those sorts of "helpers", it is rare for someone with your talents to help me out in a sustained way as you are doing, and I want to express my appreciation for the high quality of your help. Thanks for helping. Thanks for the conversations. I like working beside you on these articles. WAS 4.250 14:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for you kind words. I guess that I'm saying that you should include materials that come from a WHO spokesperson, without entering into judgment about how qualified she is to speak for the WHO. To do otherwise is, in essence, to assert that you're more qualified to judge the truth of the statements that she makes than she is. For all I know, that may be true, but that surely would fall afoul of the principle that you're working so hard to establish - that WP is a place to refer to experts, not a place to act as one. Is that a fair statement of your position? If it is, then you'd better be very careful to adhere to it when it applies to you! Waitak 00:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Re-creation = "vandalism"[edit]

I have responded on my talk page to your comments. Thanks, Mtiedemann 09:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Your efforts[edit]

Your efforts are appreciated. However I feel as if user:Northmeister is not acting in good faith by making edits like these to articles that I am active with. [22][23][24][25][26] It appears that he is seeking out articles I am involved in and then is adding unsourced POV to them. In addtion, I've noticed that he has started using "improvements" as a synonym for "revert". Perhaps this weeklong effort would be more successful if Northmesiter avoids antagonistic actions, and focuses on working through the American System issues. If he focuses on immigration issues instead the result won't be as good. -Will Beback 17:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I am just as interested in the immigration and English language articles as anyone else in modern America - and establishing facts within those articles based on sources, where the facts are not there. Attributing motivations to me is neither fair nor right. If it were true that I was seeking out articles you only edit, then I would be active in more than the English only article wouldn't I? This is what I have to put up with constantly from this editor/admin - never assuming good faith on my part. As far as "improvement" that is the case - I am adding, not deleting material or going to an earlier system which is revert. Why do you continually disparage my edits rather than engage in civil discussion as to why I make them, offer pointers, and then we can come to why I made them and maybe if I was wrong then change them for the better? --Northmeister 17:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You two both need to get used to two ideas:

  1. You are both good useful valuable contributors to wikipedia.
  2. You two have a major personality clash that is no one's fault. WAS 4.250 18:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
You asked me to avoid getting into a dispute with Northmeister and to forego editing the American System (economics) so that you could work with him on it. I'd ask that Northmeister forego making contentious edits to topics that I am working on while I avoid making edits to an article he is involved with. Otherwise the exercise seems pointless. -Will Beback 21:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Contentious? I've been editing material regarding the immigration debate and english language debate before the present agreement for a week. If you wish to have me refrain from those articles, then I ask you refrain from other articles I am involved with beyond what you currently are editing as well. I certainly agree not to edit the immigration and english only articles - you should refrain from articles I edit here on out, that you are not presently involved in - by that criteria. If you agree here, so be it, I will refrain for the moment from editing immigration and english only articles - for this week. --Northmeister 22:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I am refraining from dealing with the AS, Mixed economy, and other related articles. -Will Beback 00:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

American System (Henry Clay program)[edit]

Just though you ought to be aware of this: it looks like it needs to be merged with American System (economic system), but you seem to be involved with the ins an outs of the history.--Nema Fakei 15:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information. It needs to be a redirect. I'll do that immediately. WAS 4.250 16:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: A better idea[edit]

Thanks for the suggestion, but would you mind posting it under mine on the case page (indent level : so sigs can have ::)? I'd rather keep things as open as possible. Personally, I feel that we should give one last chance for reconciliation between the two parties. --Xyrael T 11:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do mind. I wish to have nothing more to do with the guy. Color me gone. WAS 4.250 11:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As you wish. --Xyrael T 11:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing pages[edit]

Could I have an opinion? I spend quite a bit of time on vegetable oil related pages (I spent more time on List of vegetable oils - which is basically finished now - than I have on anything else). I just finished writing Amaranth oil, for example. I'm curious as to what you think of the quality of these articles with respect to depending on sources. Mind taking a look and offering an opinion? Waitak 11:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm on a wikipedia vacation[edit]

I'm on a wikipedia vacation for several reasons, the most important of which is some upcomming surgery. Take care. I'll be back. WAS 4.250 14:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I wish you well. I trust that it's not anything overly serious. Waitak 14:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


I see you're probably away medical reasons. I hope all goes well and that you return to good health quickly.

When you do com e abck to Wikipedia, I'd appreciate getting a report on how the work progressed on the American System. As you recall, you asked to to stay away for a week so that you could work on removing the unsourced material, etc. Well, how'd it go? Were the problems that I raised about the article addressed? I'd be interested in hearing your view of how the article has been improved. Cheers, -Will Beback 05:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)