User talk:Antelan/Archives/2007/December
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Expanding questions
Which questions would you like me to expand further on? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks for the reply. The major one for me is the SPOV question that Ragesoss asked. I was hoping for an answer that covered the conceptual notion of the concept of SPOV, not the historical defeat of the policy of SPOV. I apologize, since this is not a particularly straightforward issue. Antelan talk 05:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, that one. I admit I have little experience with scientific academia; I'm a history major and my area of work on the project is more with the social sciences. Also, this being a content issue, it is something ArbCom lacks the power or authority to rule on since the community has not granted it that power. That said, I am glad we only use NPOV and not a combination of the two. Not only does it simplify our policies by consolidation, but the SPOV policy would've forced us to determine what is science and what is pseudoscience, something that would get way too heated in a situation such as global warming or evolution. Making judgments is best left to the scholars. Our global warming page is a perfect example of how NPOV can and does work for science articles. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for expanding your comments. It's interesting that, in your discussion of SPOV, you should bring up the notion that arbitrators do not decide content decisions. I say this because there is exactly one case that I have found where the ArbCom made substantial content decisions, and this case, go figure, concerned science: [1]. I asked Newyorkbrad if he was aware of any similar cases, and he agreed that it was an anomaly. Antelan talk 06:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Huh, that is strange. During the allegations of apartheid case the arbitrators vigorously stressed the lack of authority over content so much so that they put a huge banner atop the workshop page. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well thank you for your responses and for expanding upon your answers. I've changed my !vote to support not because of your answer itself, but because of your willingness to engage in an extended conversation about it. Thanks, and best of luck. Antelan talk 03:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! It's not often you see people brave enough to go back on a vote, so I appreciate you having the courage to do so. :) --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 04:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well thank you for your responses and for expanding upon your answers. I've changed my !vote to support not because of your answer itself, but because of your willingness to engage in an extended conversation about it. Thanks, and best of luck. Antelan talk 03:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Huh, that is strange. During the allegations of apartheid case the arbitrators vigorously stressed the lack of authority over content so much so that they put a huge banner atop the workshop page. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for expanding your comments. It's interesting that, in your discussion of SPOV, you should bring up the notion that arbitrators do not decide content decisions. I say this because there is exactly one case that I have found where the ArbCom made substantial content decisions, and this case, go figure, concerned science: [1]. I asked Newyorkbrad if he was aware of any similar cases, and he agreed that it was an anomaly. Antelan talk 06:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, that one. I admit I have little experience with scientific academia; I'm a history major and my area of work on the project is more with the social sciences. Also, this being a content issue, it is something ArbCom lacks the power or authority to rule on since the community has not granted it that power. That said, I am glad we only use NPOV and not a combination of the two. Not only does it simplify our policies by consolidation, but the SPOV policy would've forced us to determine what is science and what is pseudoscience, something that would get way too heated in a situation such as global warming or evolution. Making judgments is best left to the scholars. Our global warming page is a perfect example of how NPOV can and does work for science articles. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
No apologies necessary
I respect your opinion very highly. Thanks for the input. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
EVP
Got the talk page too. Also tried to help out with a light copyedit of the lead. Adam Cuerden talk 04:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Ghost Light
I've responded to your question on the Ghost Light page. -JWGreen (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem. As you've probably read, i've backed out of the conflict. I think I found the diff you were refering to, and I can see where you're coming from. I still don't know much about it, but I can definitly see your questions are valid. As I wasn't very familiar with the paranormal vs. folklore part of the argument, I assumed his argument may have validity. Anyways, hope the conflict is resolved without too much more argument. -JWGreen (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: Prod.
Thanks for the notification. The post to his talk page was made automatically by the Twinkle script, though. If you think it would have been better placed elsewhere, feel free to reproduce it. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message. I think if you're going to place it anywhere, that's the place to do it. I just thought I'd let you know what was going on. Best, Antelan talk 03:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: "Undoing" content decisions
There's no provision for such a thing, and I rather doubt we'd allow for it. Given that we're explicitly not bound by precedent, "redacting" old decisions would be a meaningless exercise in rewriting history, at best. Kirill 07:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 50 | 10 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Quackwatch
At my talk page you wrote, In your response to the Quackwatch RfC, you made a suggestion to use original research in the Quackwatch article. It's a strange recommendation, don't you think?. I assume you refer to this Talk:Quackwatch item, but I don't know what you mean. Please feel free to put a (specific) criticism there, and I will rebut there or correct a mistake there. Thanks, Pete St.John (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Hi, would you please comment on the last part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quackwatch#An_idea? I can't get over how the arguments are still on going like this. I guess I am naive, but I am about done with this article again. It seems like every little thing gets blown out of proportion and stressful which I don't need nor do I want. I appreciate and respect what you have to say about things so I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Four reverts....
I'd appreciate it if you would revert the fourth rollback from our anonymous friend.... as per our previous discussion, I'm reporting this incident rather than taking action. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly. Thanks for your message, and I appreciate the approach you're taking. I'm confident the community will see this issue in the same way you see them, and will act appropriately to stop the IP from continuing its disruption. Antelan talk 07:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Fringe comments on your userpage
You might consider dating your remarks as "... The Wikipedia that I have experienced for the last few months ..." is difficult to understand without the context of a date. Just a suggestion. :) Anthon01 (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
3 characterizations of my edits
I do appreciate your attempts to provide some calm to the QW talkpage, but I believe your attempts in my regard are misguided. On the QW talk page you characterized my question to CrohnieGal
| “ | So you believe the part of the same text that played a pivotal role in this "peer-review" deadlock and that you suggested should be removed to stop the conflict, is now ok in another section? Seems like I misunderstood what this agreement was about. | ” |
as disrespectful. I have not attacked or disrespected CrohnieGal in any way. I simply ask her to explain her apparent change of heart. On ScienceApologist's talk page you characterized my question to him as aggressive. I restated the same agreement and asked him to abide by it.
On the same talk page section, you also stated,
| “ | What is more, you are arguing some issues from both sides, depending on what suits you in the moment. When I removed the advisor list and note about peer-review, you stated, "I don't know that a consensus has been reached on the current text." Now, you fall back on "Seems like I misunderstood what this agreement was about." | ” |
in so many words, that I am being hypocritical. I said I don't know that a consensus has been reached on the current text because a large number of editors were not present and/or not enough time had passed. I later stated, seems like I misunderstood what this agreement was about because I was referring to an agreement not consensus. Note agreement vs. consensus. Finally CrohnieGal, and ScientificApologist were both present when that agreement (not yet consensus) was discussed. . Your attempts to qualify my edits as hypocritical, aggressive and disrespectful are unfair and inflammatory. They are unappreciated and bordering on harassment. I respectfully ask you to stop. Perhaps if you were to AGF before you ascribe negative characterizations to my statements you would be able to better interpret the intent behind my edits. Anthon01 (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think I have mischaracterized your editing, but thank you for your thoughts. Please see WP:AAGF. Antelan talk 01:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you take me a bit too literally. No worries. Antelan talk 02:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy holidays!
I am just popping in to wish you a very Happy, Healthy Holiday! Thank you very much for all the kindness you have treated with me. I hope the New Year brings great things. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Bleep talk
If you would tell me which sections you wish to continue to discuss, I'll unarchive those. I have great difficulty loading long pages, so when they get over about 150 kb I archive. I suspect by your request that you think I archived improperly, but I think it was per WP convention, as reflected by the warning you get when you try to edit the page. It might be easier for you to just paste them in yourself. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
I appreciate your comments at AN/I. I haven't seen you around, but I do appreciate your support.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's remarkable that, despite our apparent mutual interest in various topics, we haven't edited many of the same articles. I guess the fringe has many fronts that need to be tamed constantly. Regards, Antelan talk 06:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Can you help out at Fetus. A certain parolee is causing problems there too. Yeah, there are tons of articles that have crap as their reliable source. LOL. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Civility, pro and con
Hi! Saw your comment at User_talk:ScienceApologist#Howdy.2C_and_general_discussion_on_Civility
You wrote: "If you spent more time dancing with the fringe theorists, you might change your step. I actually find it refreshing when people invoke WP:SPADE, because it's a reminder that there are people who actually understand and cherish (insert topic here) enough to become righteously angry."
-- I spend a lot of time and energy dancing with fringe theorists, and have been doing so for decades. And I yield to none in the strength of my righteous anger against them. It's just that I am coming around to the view that such righteous anger needs to be used in a carefully controlled fashion like any other source of energy. As I said in my post, I think that civility is often more effective than incivility, even if less immediately satisfying.
Civility is not in any way the same as accepting fringe theories, it's just one style of combatting them, and possibly a more effective one. Or perhaps it's just as Robert Heinlein said, "It's remarkable how much 'mature wisdom' resembles 'being too tired'." :-)
-- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well said, and thanks for your note. I'll have to think some more about where I ultimately stand. It all comes down to what is effective in constructing the encyclopedia, even when we feel too tired to handle more bafflegab. Antelan talk 22:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Ovarian cancer
Yes, for an ovarian teratoma, 4 cm is small. The only teratomas that are routinely found while smaller than that are testicular. But, anyway, that's a story for Teratoma, not Ovarian cancer. --Una Smith (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that it's a small teratoma, but thought it didn't make sense in the context of the ovarian cancer article. I'm in agreement that this belongs on the teratoma page. Thanks. Antelan talk 23:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Unprotected sex
I thought your comment about the failure rate for fertility awareness on the WPMED talk page was interesting. I agree with your decision not to keep the chat going there, but I thought you might like to know that the condom article asserts that the typical use pregnancy rate among condom users is documented at 10–18% per year,[1], which is not a heck of a lot different from the 20% you claimed for fertility awareness. In terms of reliably preventing pregnancy (especially in a low-compliance population), I'm not sure that either of these methods could be described as ideally effective. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- WhatamIdoing, yes, I was awestruck when, sitting in lecture hall, I learned roughly the same thing. Depending on how you see things, "perfect use" of fertility awareness is pretty effective, or "typical use" of condoms is pretty ineffective. Lyrl, I'll be traveling over the next few days but this is an important topic and I'll try to get involved. Antelan talk 07:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
