User talk:Ubiq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Evolutionary psychology forum

I thought that you might be interested to know that there is an evolutionary psychology forum over at the Psychology Wiki. It was set up a little more than a month ago but still hasn't been used yet. I'll inform other Wikipedians who I think may be interested, as well. EPM 21:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		for giving this whole thing a try. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for giving this a try. I should apologize for being overly snippy in reaction to one of my pet peeves. Cool Hand Luke 21:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geriatric1927 not a candidate for deletion

Saw your edit summary on your recent edit. The subject of the article has been the primary focus of many nontrivial published works as a quick search will tell you. He has also been discussed on TV programs, and perhaps more. Of course, feel free to clean up the article in any way you can. —siroχo 01:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed a few sections which were not relevant to his notability per WP:BLP. After looking through the article thoroughly, I no longer considered it a candidate for an AfD (this was very shortly after I made my edit--and edit summary). However, I see potential problems in creating wiki articles for YouTube members unless a specific member has gotten significant media attention (outside of the blogosphere). As you might have seen on Talk:Geriatric1927, his YouTube friend Argent009 started threatening other users when something was removed from the page.

I could only imagine what would happen if we didn't set standards for this (in terms of what YouTube users should have an article). Users might try to create articles for themselves, and perhaps might link to their articles through the fame beyond youtube section, trying to draw attention. Not saying that this would for sure happen on a mass scale, but I think there's already evidence that it has happened to some extent. Erik Mongrain has 2000+ subscribers, Andy McKee has 4000+, Jeong-Hyun Lim has 5000+ and only 2 videos. Liam Kyle Sullivan has 1000+ subscribers and 2 videos. BowieChick has 4000 subscribers. There are limited mentions of some of these users in the media and I'm not quite sure they all reached "fame" beyond Youtube. If these users are considered the standard or even bare minimum point at which to make a Youtube user wiki page, then we can't be surprised if at least 200 other pages are created in the next year (of likely non-notable people), because I could probably think of at least 30 users who have gained more media attention and have far more subscribers than the ones listed above. Yet, I just don't see (the vast majority of) these users as famous or notable enough to be in an encyclopedia article. I'm not overly worried about this. I just see it as a potential problem because I know how a lot of their users crave attention to get subscribers (the site is very competitive in that way). Perhaps I'm experiencing an availability heuristic after seeing Argent009's postings. Who knows? Let me know what you think about this. If you agree, what do you think the standards should be? --Ubiq 03:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with your principles and concerns. A few years ago the concerns alone would have prompted me to insist the article be deleted; A person looking for exposure has only to create a few amateur movies, post them to YouTube and then create an article about themselves without having to do anything worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. If i understand your principle, it's that YouTube as a topic is worth inclusion, but including YouTube users on that criteria alone is unacceptable. Unless the subject is also known for something beyond YouTube, of course. Even though I agree with you, the same issues would need to be addressed regarding pornography. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with porn as an issue or an article on here like Pornographic actor. The problem is there are many articles about pornstars who are only known for porn. Amber Lynn and Jewell Marceau to name a couple as opposed to a pornstar like John Holmes (actor) who got caught up in the Wonderland murders. In my opinion making Wikipedia a catalog of YouTube and porn stars degrades the quality somewhat, but short of high level administrator intervention these articles are probably here to stay. I'm sorry I can't offer a more positive outlook on this. Anynobody 05:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was probably a bit narrow in my reasoning. Now that you mention that stuff, it seems like it would be pretty easy to promote just about anything through misuse of wikipedia and I consider it one of the biggest up and coming problems wikipedia faces. That's why I'd like to see a stricter editing policy. It boggles my mind as to why they still allow anon IP addresses to edit articles. And while I am against censorship, I agree that listing too many of such sites (like porn ones you mentioned) can be problematic, especially if wikipedia wants to maintain a decent image. --Ubiq 05:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, it's good reasoning if Wikipedia was truly an encyclopedia in the traditional sense. By that I mean that every encyclopedia I've seen does not get so involved in specific aspects of a given topic. As I grew up, I was told by several teachers that this is because only so much information fits on a page and it gets very difficult to verify specific information. For example a traditional encyclopedia would probably have an article about battleships, but probably not an article about the Iowa class battleship. I would actually nominate a name change from Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia to just Wikipedia, because this is a new concept. Since making my last post I've reconsidered my position a bit with this in mind. I now think this should best be thought of as what the people who invented encyclopedias would have wanted them to be, information about anything people may want to know about. As long as one remembers the inherent human issues that cause trouble on here, Wikipedia is a good starting point to research anything real, Ann Coulter, unreal Bermuda Triangle, or even fictional Miranda class starship (Star Trek). (Incidentally, because I used to be really into Star Trek as a kid I learned that fans can get even more contentious about subjects than the recent debates on Ann Coulter were.)

As for anons, I kind of look at them as a human randomizer to keep things interesting with lessons about human nature. I realize you are/were experiencing the wrath of a particular anon but I hope it(he/she) hasn't hurt your feelings. It's actually in a way a victory for you; You argue your point so well that somebody with an opposing viewpoint has had their day/week/life ruined enough to resort to vandalism. Anynobody 03:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha. Well my stalker didn't "hurt my feelings" but it annoyed me to some extent at the beginning. Probably because it was the first time I had one here. I just delete his/her posts now. Saves a lot of time. Ubiq 17:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for the Barnstar Ubiq. I appreciate the thought, your reason, and tenacity. I have no problem debating the worth of information I believe belongs here, but have noticed some users can't or won't debate why it doesn't. I noticed the same thing happening to you, and it impressed me that you genuinely want to address the specifics of your opposition's opinion. This implies an open mind, which I wish more of us were. Anynobody 01:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that ip who said he was spammed from Wikipedia review. I really don't understand why the anon thought it worth his time. Well, goodluck. Cool Hand Luke 14:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for trying

I'm quite sorry to read (on Kizzle's talk-page) that you are abandoning the Coulter article, though I can't say that I blame you, given the prevailing style of discussion there. I hope you'll keep an eye on it, and go so far as to sound in now and again, when it matters. Illegitimus non carborundum. -- Lonewolf BC 06:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I too have thought about quitting, some editors there seem intentionally obtuse when it comes to facts that don't suit them. However I think things might be turning back toward an article you'd accept so don't bail out now. I'd give you a Barnstar but it'd look weird since you gave me one. Anynobody 06:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha. Although a barnstar would be nice, it's certainly not something I need and I honestly don't think I deserve one for anything I've contributed with the Ann Coulter page. I'd rather get one for contributions I've made and future contributions I'll make to psychology and neuroscience articles. About the editing of the Ann Coulter article, I can definitely sympathize with you. At first, I thought I could really help with the discussion on and improvements of that article, but over time I realized that Lou and a few others will blatantly ignore good points and will pretty much find any way they can to get what they want. My reasoning in leaving is that my want to add relevant information and improve on articles/subjects I care about, greatly outweighs my want to improve one single article about a political pundit just because I see it's being overrun by POV pushing fans of hers. I wouldn't blame anyone for wanting to stop engaging with such people (like Lou for instance). So don't feel bad if you end up getting discouraged and leaving. --Ubiq 07:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar to you, too

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you, Ubiq, a barnstar for your efforts in making wikipedia a more rewarding place to edit. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well said and deserved :) Anynobody 23:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rating the ToK

Hi. I'm trying to get members of the Psychology Project to get together and rate the both the quality and importance of the Tree of Knowledge System. Hope you're interested. Have a great day! EPM 19:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Much appreciated!

Hey there. Thanks for fixing my userboxes. I was jumping from userpage to userpage trying to find someone with those boxes to copy their code. You saved me a lot of time, haha.

I see we're looking over the same article. I think the article can be greatly improved upon and sourced better. I noticed a few sentences yesterday that seemed like they were tacked on by someone with a POV, as they didn't seem to flow well with the paragraphs and they had no sources. But after noticing much of the article doesn't have sources, I put them back in and put citation tags. I'll try to find the exact criticism that is claimed, and if I can't, I think I might just go ahead and remove it again. Let me know what you think about this. I was also thinking about adding some information:

1. Making a small sub-section mentioning the fact that over 1500 species have been observed to practice homosexuality, elaborating, and linking to Animal sexuality.

2. Adding to and rounding out the twin studies that Bailey and Pillard have done. As of now, the article only mentions the difference between MZ and DZ twins, yet "11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual" Adoption studies are important in twin studies in teasing out environmental factors. Also, Baily and Pillard did a study a few years later on twin sisters, with similar findings. I was thinking about adding that. Also, research has suggested MZ twins (even ones seperated at birth) oftentimes end up having very similar likings/preferences. I'm sure this could somehow be tied in.

3. I think a Misconceptions or similar section could be made, especially in regards to the mention of a "gay gene" and its perpetuation through popular media. In fact, some of this article has sentences concerning adaptation that almost imply that there's some commonly held view that if homosexuality was genetic, that it would somehow be from one gene. I'm quite positive that the consensus is that this is not the case and that if it does have a genetic basis, that it's presumed to be a polygenic process. And that singling out the specific genes would take years to perform and millions of dollars in research.

4. I think including more research on various parts can help round it out. I found a critical review of research done on this and will peruse it to find anything relevant, and see if I can fit some stuff in.

I also read Choice and sexual orientation and noticed that it is rather scarce in content. I think a lot could be contributed to it, specifically philosophical views on free will and the sort. If you're interested or know someone who is, let me know what you think of all of these points. I think I can do some significant work to these articles in the coming weeks, assuming I'll have some time. --Ubiq 08:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem :-) Glad I could help. All of your suggestions for the article are excellent and I would love to help in any way I can. I'm a bit busy with WikiProject Carnivorous plants as you can probably tell from my contributions. I'm also in the midst of writing my thesis, but any time I can squeeze in I'll dedicate to this article. I agree it needs a bit of help. Have you connected with the people over at WikiProject LGBT studies? I know a few of the participants watch and edit the articles in question.

Why not post this discussion on the talk page of the the article and then alert the LGBT WikiProject with a small note in case they aren't watching that specific article? Right now it's a bit late, so I think I'm going to wrap up for the evening, but I'll look into sources for some of the assertions on the page tomorrow (no work! Thank you, federal holiday). I look forward to working with you on this. You seem like an excellent editor. Best, --Rkitko 09:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User harassing you

As an admin who supposedly gave you "poor/no help", I thought you would be interested to know that all of the IP addresses harassing you have been unblocked, much before six months. They're dynamic addresses. Like I told you, long term-blocks of non-static addresses are not usually tolerated. Cool Hand Luke 23:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And death threats are tolerated? That's good to know. What I'll never understand is why anon IP users who vandalize wikipedia and disrupt other users are cut so much slack, when, it only takes 2 minutes to sign up. Yet those who sign up are liable to receive harsher penalties for such things. I guess it's more of a policy gripe, but the fact that this should be changed is pretty obvious to me. I didn't mean to be insulting about how you handled the whole thing (I still think you're doing a good job with the Coulter article and that you are genuinely trying to be a fair admin), but I consider a 24 hour block to be not even a slap on the wrist. I understand that blocks are preventative, not punative, so why not prevent this user from making my and others' stay on wikipedia a much less good one? I've given serious thought to stop editing on wikipedia entirely because of this whole thing. --Ubiq 02:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I frankly agree with you, although I think the project is slowly becoming more realistic about dealing with trolls. I wish email registration was required, but that clashes with the idealistic goals Wikipedia was founded on. This garbage is the cost of doing business, so to speak, at least until we're all finally sick of it. Cool Hand Luke 05:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for peer review

The article Clinical psychology has just been listed for peer review. You are invited to lend your editing eyes to see if it needs any modifications, great or small, before it is submitted to the Featured Article review. Then head on over to the peer review page and add your comments, if you are so inspired. Thank you!! Psykhosis 20:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey there. Thanks for the heads up. I think I've already read it but I don't remember how long ago. I've got all of the Psychology articles linked in a word file in an order I wanted to read them (there are roughly 500-600) and it seems I've passed the Clinical Psych article. I'll look it over again and rate it as best as I know how. Thanks again. --Ubiq 08:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Cite web" template

I had a lot of trouble when using this template at first too, for the list of atheists revamp. I got the hang eventually though.

There is no author field. The fields for the author are last for the last name, first for the first name, and authorlink for the title of the author's article if they have one. For a staff writer, I use the last field and leave the others empty.

The accessdate field doesn't have the date put in normally. The input has to be in yyyy-mm-dd format, which I think is the European standard format (but I'm not sure).

So, the one you were trying to do, I'd set like this: {{cite web |last=Staff Writer | first= | authorlink= | date= [[March 11]] [[2007]] | title=Has Ann Coulter Hit Her Tipping Point? | url=http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=254652&GT1=7703 | publisher=[[MSN]] |accessdate=2007-03-11}}

Hope I helped. ~Switch ^{t c g} 08:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if you're unsure of how to use a template, you can normally type in Template:[TEMPLATENAME] in the searh box on the left and push Go. The link for this template is Template:Cite web. The main pages for templates, especially ones that are used often, normally have guides for usage, and full copies of all fields that can be copied-and-pasted into an article. I do this all the time for Template:Infobox musical artist, because I can never remember the fields for it. Cheers. ~Switch ^{t c g} 08:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You're my hero. I'll start using that one. --Ubiq 03:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You're more than welcome. Thanks so much for the barnstar! ~Switch ^{t c g} 04:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

I appreciate your saying that. (Btw, it's "she" - but I'm not offended!) Tvoz | talk 09:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, haha. Sorry about that. I'm usually pretty good about using gender neutral wording.

On another note, that article is a bit tough to defend from some of the political vultures out there. Thankfully, there are some sensible editors (like you and bbatsell) who keep an eye on it. Keep up the good work! --Ubiq 09:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)