User talk:Bensaccount

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Check the history if you are interested in past discussions.

• Archive 01
• Archive 02

Post new discussions here. Address specific articles on their talk pages. Bensaccount 18:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Creation science redux 2 Original formulation of NPOV 3 I did not request you to crop an NPOV chapter without concensus 4 Banned 5 Please check your WP:NA entry 6 Volume percent 7 Neutral Point of View 8 Nature Pics 9 My Rfc 10 WP:POINT 11 GPCR's 12 Atom pic with proton diameter 1.5 fm 13 Wikipedia:WikiProject Cat breeds 14 Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

[edit] Creation science redux

In reference to a previous discussion, now removed from this page, you made this final comment in an edit summary.[1]

Once again, the selected list of edits which you dislike omits the context, the reasoning for these edits, the order in which they were made, and the vast majority of my other edits to CS

I would like to address it:

I listed a few of your edits, for review, in response to your casual dismissal of your edit history at the article in question.

I never suggested that I had provided a full overview of your history as an editor, or even as an editor of the specific article. I did however list, in chronological order, a number of controversial edits you had made, and went so far as to conclude that these edits were very similar, and ill-advised.

Then, I listed my reasoning, and what I deduce/remember was the reasoning of other editors as to the redundancy of your edit.

I never suggested I knew you. I never suggested you were incapable of making good edits. In fact, I made sure to include a note suggesting that you had gone through a specific phase of making ill-advised edits, suggesting you were quite capable of putting your history behind you. I am quite willing to put this conflict behind us, but not to remove all reference to it. -- Ec5618 19:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original formulation of NPOV

About your Village Pump question: that version of NeutralPointOfView that I found was last edited on April 12, 2001. However, the statement is at the top of the page and it looks like it inspired some discussion, placing the original posting of the statement probably a decent time before that.

The fact that the page is named in CamelCase and not as a "free link" makes me suspect the page was created before February 19 or so, when free links were first made possible. Otherwise he would have named it "Neutral point of view" or something like that.--Cam 04:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I did not request you to crop an NPOV chapter without concensus

See the NPOV Talk page, and please revert to show you good faith, thanks. Harald88 18:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banned

Without warning, User:David Gerard suddenly banned me for editing (or in his words "messing around") Wikipedia:NPOV. User:Katefan0 subsequently reverted all of the recent edits to the page. Neither of these users offer much explanation on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. I think these users owe me and all the people who have recently contributed to this page an explanation. Bensaccount 17:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is fundamental. It has wide acceptance among editors, and that is why it's considered policy. Regularly tinkering with this policy over a period of several months in the absence of significant and extensive community input is not all right. That's about all I have to say. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 02:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

As you say, my edits were spread over several months, which gives ample time to examine and discuss them. The lack of significant and extensive community input is due at least in part to the fact that NPOV is presented in such a vague, drawn-out, repetitive manner that it gets rarely read. Hence my attempts to simplify and clarify. How can we involve the comminity if any attempt to simplify and clarify the policy leads to banning and reversion? If If you want to help, you can discuss the edits at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. Bensaccount 22:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BDAbramson T 05:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Volume percent

An article you started, Volume percent, has been proposed for deletion. Please see the article for details. NickelShoe 16:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral Point of View

Why would they individially be grounds for exclusion, but not individually be grounds for inclusion. Bensaccount 16:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I am asking you to clarify your position here, but feel free to do so in the NPOV talk page if you prefer. I do not understand where you are trying to go with your question. I thought about this kind of possibilities for a little while, but the idea of individual criteria for inclusion does not seem to be even close to the way we normally interpret the policy. The only criteria for inclusion I have seen editors use are things like "It is interesting" or "There is no reason to exclude it". The former is not policy at all. The latter is policy, but only means that if none of the individual criteria for exclusion hold, then we should include the material. Can you give example of what you mean? -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 21:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also appreciate that you explain what is your problem with my interpretation, which supports your view that all criteria must be considered and sometimes together. As I explained, it is not because in principle every criterion can be used separately as a ground for exclusion that in practice we do not need to consider them together. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 21:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: Some editors might find offensive that we use their talk page to argue with them. I just want you to know that I like you and I certainly do not want to offense you. I just felt that it will be better to understand each other here before we continue, if needed, on the article talk page. Then we can delete this section. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 01:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Continued @ talkNPOV Bensaccount 16:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

In rereading through the NPOV discussion, it seems to me that you might significantly contribute to the clarity of NPOV, V and NOR. I too feel that there is too much information presented in too convoluted a style. Your suggestion, The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with verifiable views; original research is not permitted, didn't find acceptence, but is the best one liner I've seen, capturing 90 percent of the stuff the NPOV policy page says in one sentence. However, wikipedia editors don't like to be told their hard work is condescending when, really, it is the result of months and years of work. Terryeo 18:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nature Pics

Thanks for adding the cool pics to Nature :) - Jtneill - Talk 17:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfc

There is a Rfc on me. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière I am just an ordinary user that felt that a clearer policy will be useful when there are disputes. If I am left alone on this, I have no chance. -Lumière 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POINT

Please cease your tit-for-tat at Talk:NPOV. FeloniousMonk 19:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GPCR's

Nice add on the picture for GPCR's, could you possibly add the subunits as well being you have the original file. I know this may take some time, but the current picture does not accurately reflect the structural changes. Thanks though and well done otherwise (Sterichinderance 07:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Atom pic with proton diameter 1.5 fm

Best estimate proton diameter is 1.6 to 1.7 fm. Might as use the best numbers we have. Nice illustration, by the way. You might put in proton dimensions in A (1.6 x 10^-5A) just for comparisonSBHarris 15:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Cat breeds

I noted that you were one of the founding members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cat breeds. That project has seemed to go dormant lately, although my recent joining has reactivated it. I was wondering if you would think it might be a good idea to merge the two projects together. I acknowledge that the scope of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats is a lot broader than that of the cat breeds project, but it does at least seem to have gotten a fair amount of new members lately. Also, given its breadth, it could easily take on the duties of the Cat breeds project now that it has become dormant. I would be very interested in hearing from you on either project page whether you think the two projects should merge or not. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a copy of the first newsletter of the Cats WikiProject, mentioning the proposed merger. I'm sending it out to all of the members of the Cat Breeds Project so that they can know a little about the group with which there is an existing merger proposal. We would welcome any and all comments about the project, and the newsletter, from members of both groups. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can