User talk:Kalsermar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kalsermar is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia on and off for a few weeks before returning fully

Welcome to my user talk page. In general I will answer any comments that are posted here on this page unless there is a request to discuss matters elsewhere on Wikipedia.

For some older discussions Please see the archive

Contents

[edit] M93

Greetings. You added the spatial radius of Open Cluster M93 rather peculiarly as "12-12 light years". Maybe you might wish to change that? Wikiborg 22:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out Wikiborg, I've changed it to what I menat it to say, namely 10 to 12 light years. Thanks!--Kalsermar 00:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: requested input

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was forced to reblock him. I was initially hoping to unblock him, but his past behavior is too concerning. I will let another administrator unblock if he desires. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Variable Star

Sorry, didn't mean to add a duplicate link to Heinlein's Variable Star novel... but the Variable Star page doesn't link to Heinlein's page, as you state that it does... am I missing something? — iGods দ 30 July 2006

You are missing a capital letter. Variable Star redirects to the novel, Variable star is the astronomical phenomenon.--Kalsermar 18:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Astronomy Names

You may be interested in looking at http://www.seds.org/messier/m-names.html . This SEDS website appears to be the source of many of the strange names for astronomical sources used on Wikipedia, albeit not all of them. Note the contributors' names on the SEDS page.

It seems like http://www.seds.org was generally copied to create a lot of the clusters, nebulae, and galaxies pages on Wikipedia. I wonder if the SEDS people themselves helped to create the Wikipedia entries or if someone simply plagarized the material wholesale.

Alas, the SEDS website is not the only source of bad astronomy names. I see that you have already encountered the "Starfish Galaxy" and the "Fried Egg Galaxy". I also dislike the names "Bode's Galaxy" and "Cigar Galaxy" being used for Messier 81 and Messier 82, and I may attempt to move both of those pages in the future.George J. Bendo 18:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. I recognize at least one of the contributors on the first link as the now banned Wikipedia user (look at the vacuum cleaner galaxy for the name). On the subject of M81 and M82, I would certainly support a move to Messier 81 and 82 respectively.--Kalsermar 19:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Reagan Doctrine

Thanks for your note. I'd like your assistance on trying to get some reference in the article to the fact that there are large segments of the population who believe that this doctrine did lead to 9/11. I would agree to stating that it is generally unsubstantiated. However, an Eminem song about this topic is relevant because literally millions of people listen and believe. Isn't it also true that the doctrine did play a role in strengthening segments of the Afghan rebels that ultimately organized the attack? I realize some say that didn't include Bin Laden and some say it did, but the fact that this is a widely-held belief makes it relevant for inclusion (something small, at the bottom of the article, and noted as unsubstantiated). I will attempt to reinsert something along these lines. Please give it a look and hopefully we can agree on it. Thanks. AfricaEditor 19:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am of the opinion that a song by any artist is never a suitable reference for an encyclopaedia. Anyone can record a song about anything they want and yes, millions listen to it and many of those may or may not believe what the song says but it isn't encyclopaedic material. What in general is needed to include anything on Wikipedia is a reliable source stating that something is the case. This can include but is not limited to, mainstream press (Washington Post, Fox News, MSNBC, that sort of thing), official government documents, scolars in a field of study (political science springs to mind in this case), etc. I don't know if the Reagan Doctrine led to the attacks and it isn't relevant what I think either. Citing sources is one of the pillars of Wikipedia editing.
Also, a widely held belief requires numbers to back that up. Provide polls by reputable polling companies to back it up but a poll is not enough. There's a large segment of the people who believe NASA never landed men on the moon yet they did so there has to be a good reason for including things like that. Look up under the many help topics available for undue weight. A belief some people hold may be included but care must be taken not to provide the same weight to, for instance the example cited, people who think Apollo 11 never happened and the scientific facts that state it did.
Bottom line is that if you can cite a source that says that someone with credibility says the Reagan Doctrine may have contributed to the attacks than by all means insert it with a link to the source. I hope this has helped and if you require any more help please don't hesitate to contact me again. Kalsermar 20:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I tried to develop some new language in this criticism section, in light of your edit comment and note. Also, I see you reported me for 3RR. I think I missed your final revision when I was working on the revised language. Nothing intentional. Im light of that, I'd appreciate if you might remove that report, and please let me know if you have thoughts on the new language in the article. Thanks. AfricaEditor 20:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I will strike the report out, it wasn't for 3RR btw but because I felt, erroneously I now know, that you ignored my request and reverted it again without discussion. As for the text, I'll have a look shortly and reply on the talk page there if necessary. Thanks, Kalsermar 21:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. In response to your good comments and in the interest of total cooperation, I removed all reference to the song in the article text and instead moved a link to the article to the "see also" section and even marked that "see also" section as criticism, so there is no confusion about the nature of it. Also, sorry if I was too hasty with my edits. I had cut and pasted my edits and entered them right after you had put in your revert edit. My fault, and I'll try to be more careful in the future. Thanks again. AfricaEditor 21:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I have no problem with the see also bit regarding the song. I also hope you didn't mind me taking out the 9/11 conspiracy part.--Kalsermar 21:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could you have a look at this please?

Hello, I understand you are an administrator and in that capacity I'd like you to please have a look at the following three topics on my talk page: [1], [2] and [3], especially the first and last. This user, Travb has been posting diatribes and patronizing comments elsewhere too. Would it be appropriate to simply remove these topics or to archive them? I am not sure about the policy regarding talk pages. Thank you, Kalsermar 18:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You can certainly archive comments from your talk page. Many feel that things shouldn't just be removed (as opposed to archived), especially without responding, but there is no actual policy absolutely prohibiting it. See WP:TALK for more information. I do think you two need to work on communicating alot better. Discussing why material should or should not be included in Wikipedia is vastly preferable to reverting back and forth and/or stating opinions about other editors. People disagree, but incivility and/or not trying to find a mutually acceptable compromise just guarantees that nobody will get what they want. --CBD 20:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I acknowledge the need to communicate with the user but wish to do so only on a content-of-article level and not a personal one with namecalling as this has become.--Kalsermar 20:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid astronomy name patrol: Herschel 400 Catalogue

I found this new page on the Herschel 400 Catalogue. It looks like a good page, but the writer appears to be using a number of stupid astronomy names. I have already been through it once, but I plan on re-examining the page a second time. Would you like to take a look? Thank you, George J. Bendo 07:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this one out, I'll go over it as well.--Kalsermar 13:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the page I created. You can blame my surfing and the Stephen James O'Meara Book (see the articles refs) for the names, I (wrongly) assumed that the names in the book were OK.--Jim Cornmell 14:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem, I might actually have that book myself. A lot of authors use "common" names for objects but they're not necessarily accepted by the scientific community.--Kalsermar 14:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Jim and I exchanged messages, and he now understands the problems that we've encountered in the past here on Wikipedia. I look forward to his work on Wikipedia. George J. Bendo 14:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Bush

Despite others who see it as I do you are intent on having that paragraph your way, aren't you? Do not ever accuse me of vandalism again. I am going to ask that someone of importance look at this and decide on how it should be worded. "Duke53 | Talk" 05:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for saying that you accused me of vandalism; what you accused me of was making "unencyclopaedic " (is that a word?) additions.
Other editors also seem to believe that noting dubya's age at the time of this incident is appropriate, so far there has been no consensus. "Duke53 | Talk" 07:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster seems to think that 'Unencyclopaedic' isn't a word[4]; is it then proper to use it in Wikipedia?
Whatever a dictionary says, it is still not encyclopaedic. The facts are known and that should be all that's mentioned.--Kalsermar 18:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay now I've got it: we can disregard dictionaries, but must be encyclopaedic here ... hardee har har. Fact is Bush was 30 years old trying to portray his drinking and drugging as youthful indiscretions when he was well into his 30s."Duke53 | Talk" 19:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
He was born in '46 and it happened in '76 and you are saying the reader can't figure his age out? Fact is also that Bush said it was due to youthful indiscretions, it is not up to a Wikipedia editor to qualify that. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia so yes, we need to be encyclopaedic.--Kalsermar 00:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that it's proper to make up words to be 'encyclopaedic'? "Duke53 | Talk" 17:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I am closing this discussion as it is futile to get you to listen to what is being said.--Kalsermar 01:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not surprised. Great job of communicating (which is advised by Wikipedia in cases like this) but you've decided to not do that. Way to dodge answering questions.
Your theory of communicating seems to be me listening to you, but not vice versa. :) "Duke53 | Talk" 04:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

The Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation
Dear Kalsermar: Hello, my name is Wikizach; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-17 Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions or queries relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, WikieZach| talk 16:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Wikibreak

Hello Kalsermar. I wanted to let you know that I read your entire letter/essay about your current feelings towards Wikipedia. I must say that in the short time that I have been truly editing Wikipedia, rather than just the occasional correction, I have noticed what an amazing job you are doing here. I hope you don't let some of these fools run you off after everything you've put into this project. To "turn your back" on the project now would only cause it more harm, losing an editor like yourself. Enjoy your break and come back stronger. Don't let the vandals win. AuburnPilot 07:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. My wikibreak is part moving (At an internet cafe right now) and part what I wrote there and I do hope to be back sooner rather than later. Sincerely Kalsermar 19:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)