User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

ArmedBlowfish

Hi Kim,

Does your statement on the propriety of ArmedBlowfish's RfA constitute an "official" decision in the matter, or are you expressing a knowledgeable opinion? If your comment isn't definitive, what would be?

One part of your response to the first question bothers me ... "On wikipedia, anything is permitted, as long as [it...] does not damage wikipedia."

My entire point is that it could damage Wikipedia to have a completely anonymous editor free access to edit, on the basis of "trust him." Is it true he would even be protected from legal process? Would that put Wikimedia at risk? -- Cecropia 02:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you would answer my question, Kim. You wrote a definitive sounding opinion under the rubric of (IIRC) a "Policy Maintainer." Is that an official position? Does your opinion carry official weight? -- Cecropia 01:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection

It probably doesn't, but I haven't seen any other useful suggestions recently. >Radiant< 07:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Yesterday noone could fix it at all either, so I fail to see how this changes anything. >Radiant< 10:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

#wikipedia-medcab

Could you please give chanop status to Vassyana (talk · contribs), "Vassyana" on IRC? --Ideogram 16:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"Please don't change the policy without consensus"

IMHO sentences such as this one shows lack of understanding of the term consensus. If you feel the same you have the chance to educate people at the talk of m:No open proxies~- check the page history. (I was thinking about doing it myself, but was too lazy. Or something. Besides, I think that of two posts with identical meaning, one signed Kim Bruning and one signed habj, the first one has more weight. FWIW.) // habj 14:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Per request

— CharlotteWebb 06:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Ignore all rules

The current wording on WP:IAR is the result of a very long period of discussion and consensus-building. Please do not change the wording without consulting others. Thanks! - Chardish 23:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected several flaws in the wording of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.
I've also put a comment on the talk page explaining why I changed several instances of the word "Rule" to "Guideline", and why I think that change is not likely to be very controversial.
Note that this is a wiki. I can edit the text page itself if I think my edits will be fairly uncontroversial, but you may feel free to edit or revert those words in turn, (provided -of course- that you think reverting or editing will in turn be uncontroversial). Or you can contact me, which indeed you have done. :-)
So thank you for contacting me! Are there any particular issues with the changes I've made that you'd like to discuss?
--Kim Bruning 23:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I brought up my contention with the changes at the talk page - we should probably hold discussion on the issue there. Basically, remember that a guideline has special meaning at Wikipedia - it is a policy to which there are more exceptions than a policy. If we make IAR discuss how you're allowed to ignore guidelines, it creates the false impression that you're not allowed to ignore policy (and you are). Thanks for contacting me - and see the note on my talk page (if I contacted you, I'll expect replies here, not at my talk page!) : ) - Chardish 00:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Like I said on the IAR page, I think we do need to accommodate new users more, and try to avoid jargon as much as possible. Let's continue there :-) --Kim Bruning 00:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I now understand... Rockstar (T/C) 06:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Trifecta obsolete?

This rocks. I've even made myself a userboxy thing for it too.

I wonder if it's stable. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I too have been finding more and more matters on which we think alike. As alarming as that would be been to me two years ago, today I've come to accept it and suspect that many of our differences may have come from getting started on the wrong on the foot and our strong personalities. I appreciate the difficulty your note to me caused you, so again, a sincere thank you. I hope to continue earning your esteem. FeloniousMonk 04:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Board election

The very best of luck to you. - Chardish 01:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

But I noticed I can't vote anymore? Extremely sexy 14:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake: you can't candidate anymore, but vote nevertheless, which I just did, both for you and Oscar. Extremely sexy 15:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Good luck in the election, voted for you (but see now that maybe I don't have enough edits for my vote to count, sorry!). RomaC 07:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Good Luck

Looks like I came back from hiatus just in time to vote for you. Good luck my friend.

--Wgfinley 22:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey there

'n Klein bericht om te zeggen dat ek vir jy stemde! Ek hoop jy wint!!! :)

Ek sal ook jy bel morgen, hoop dat OK is? Páll (Die pienk olifant) 20:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Strak plan. --Kim Bruning 20:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Wanneer is goed vir jy? 24.85.232.58 03:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
tussen 0800 en 2000 UTC. --Kim Bruning 22:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Found Freehold

You said: Hey, you're an actual writer! :-) Interesting. I Found Freehold in the Baen Free library. Hmm Freehold looks a bit like Switzerland, or is that just me? --Kim Bruning 20:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Switzerland, Canada, the early US, feudal Japan and the early Icelandic republic. Thanks for noticing. I didn't have as much room to develop the background as I'd like, and it's not the sort of thing that a lay character would bother with. If I get a chance to write a story involving academics, I'll stick some of that in.Mzmadmike 06:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Deja vu

People are once again reading WP:CON so as to mean that supermajority equals consensus. Perhaps the page text got nerfed or something. Since you're the local expert on these matters perhaps you'd care to reword the CON page accordingly? >Radiant< 11:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Understanding common ground

Kim, I realize that you have been busy with your campaign for the Board; good luck in the outcome. I also have been pretty busy, with vacations and other life off of WP. I would like to have some dialog with you to understand where we have common goals etc. I see you as potentially having a better grasp on the WP infrastructure than I do, and that we are seeking the same outcome with very different paths and tactics. Sometimes it is difficult to see the forrest through the trees of rhetoric. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 16:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Board election result

I see you got rather a lot of votes in the board election. Congratulations and commiserations on missing out on the top three. Carcharoth 00:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but fellow Dutchman Oscar van Dillen in particular (whom I voted for as well as for you) just missed out, since he ended in fourth place, a mere 20 votes behind "Frieda". Extremely sexy 01:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

Greetings--I see in a recent discussion that you state that if someone uses a GFDL or CC photo without properly crediting the photographer, the photographer can sue. I've never heard of that and in fact these licenses don't even allow one to specify that the photographer be credited (or the caption be accurately placed) if the photo is reused. I left a query here and after some weeks the lack of response is beginning to become deafening. Hoping you can enlighten me. Badagnani 04:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Say you want to license your image to the world at large. You do so in two steps: First you copyright it, then you license it.
“ 2. VERBATIM COPYING

You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute a large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section 3.

You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, and you may publicly display copies.

 ”
gfdl (emphasis mine)
Because the document is copyrighted, copyright and license information must be retained at all times. This is necessary because otherwise the distributer of your picture will not be able to show that he has a valid license from you to do so. (Which is why this term is in the license)
Nothing else gives a person permission to make copies of your work or distribute it, so no valid license means that they would be in violation of copyright law. In most jurisdictions you can sue for statutory damages for copyright violations.
And that's how the GNU licenses work. People are required to maintain your copyright statement, which also can count as your attribution.
CC-BY works in a similar way, and is a license that explicitly requires attribution. I can't think of any CC license off the top of my head where it would make sense to leave the BY clause out, so just always use at least BY. (CC: all possible licences, BY, legal code)
Note that once again, licensing under creative commons is a two step process, first copyright, then license. The general theme of all copyleft licenses is that copyright protects you from the bad guys, and the license protects the good guys from you. ;-)
For a more information, how about taliking with Kat Walsh who is better versed in legal matters than I am. I'd also recommend taking things up with Mike Godwin, but I can't quite seem to find his user page, perhaps Kat will know.
Could you remind me? Had someone in fact used one of your images, and failed to attribute?
--Kim Bruning 11:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your rseponse. The reason I asked is that if I'm asking a Flickr user to change their photo from "all rights reserved" to "you can do whatever you want with it" (as most of them have told me when I ask them if we can have one of their photos), I am dead set on making sure that in our use and all future re-use, they are properly credited and the photo is properly captioned. I believe that this shows a bare minimum of respect. That is why I've used the license seen at the photo for Sopranino saxophone. In fact, the caption and photo credit information you've specified is *very unclear* as you've tried to explain it above, and not included in the template at all, and also not explained in the WP pages about the GFDL and CC licenses. If the licenses don't even mention these issues, it strongly projects the attitude that photo credits and proper captioning are just not subjects of great interest or concern. This does remain a serious oversight and needs to be addressed, in "plain English"--the way it is on the license for the Sopranino saxophone photos. Badagnani 17:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In looking again at the image upload drop-down menu I see that CC-BY is available only for photos I myself have taken. But in most cases I'm asking Flickr users to relicense their contributions, so the photo is not my own work. Badagnani 18:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, I'll just start out and give a partial answer to try to cover some of the ground at least:

{{GFDL}} gives...

GFDL Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.

Which indeed you do need to read the license to learn that you need to attribute as well. <scratches head> Well, the GFDl is known as a complicated license, so I guess that's what comes with the territory. Possibly the tag should indicate who the copyright-holder is though, that'd be useful.

and

{{cc-by-2.5|Attribute to Bagadani}}


 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.

Attribution: Attribute to Bagadani

{{cc-by-sa-2.5|Attribute to Badagnani}}

Creative Commons: Some Rights Reserved
BYSA		 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.

Attribution: Attribute to Badagnani


If you modify the cc-by or cc-by-sa templates, you actually can specify details on attribution.

This might not have covered everything though. Does that indeed cover some of your concerns? Do you have further ideas on how to improve the situation yourself?

--Kim Bruning 18:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again--so you've just modified these licenses by adding a "|" to specify who the photo is to be attributed to? I wish I'd known that was possible. Yes, it does need to be made clear how to do this. HOWEVER, as it stands now, the CC-BY license you've just given me above remains, in the drop-down menu of the photo upload page, available ONLY for photos I've taken myself. Can this be changed? And the fact that the "|" thing you did with the above CC-BY license cannot be done with the GFDL license (is that correct?) remains a serious oversight, IMO. Badagnani 18:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You've said, again, that if I read the GFDL in its entirety it does stipulate that photos be properly credited and captioned. However, I've read that license many times, and just read it again. It does not specify any of those things. Badagnani 18:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Aha! I thought there might have been some misunderstandings. I haven't actually modified any licenses at all. The legal text behind these standard licenses is still the same. I have simply provided more (optional) information on this particular tag.
WRT the drop down menu, you can simply select any option, and then override the wikitext itself, by just editing the image page (it's just normal wiki-text).
The number of options available on the GFDL is rather large (did I mention it was old and over-complicated yet?) so let's finish discussing CC first, if that's ok. --Kim Bruning 19:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's starting to become clear. Can we begin by modifying the drop-down menu so that the CC-BY is not just available for images I have taken myself, but also for images taken by others, who have given their permission? That would be a good start--getting things fixed one by one. Badagnani 19:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A parenthetical statement after the CC-BY in the drop-down saying "Creative Commons license with photo credit specified" or something like that (I assume, now, from what you're telling me, that the "BY" signifies that the license will state who the photo was taken BY) would be great as well. It really isn't clear from the name of the license alone ("CC-BY") that this is the case, so the parenthetical statement is really important. Badagnani 19:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. "CC-BY" is just a convenient abbreviation. The actual name of the license is the "Creative Commons Attribution license".
We can ask about changing the drop-down menu, though I have some ideas about the reasons why it's set up the way it is... in the mean time, you can just change the wikitext yourself. That's perfectly ok to do, because in the end, you're the person who is legally responsible, not the dropdown menu. --Kim Bruning 19:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, let's get it done. Obviously the reason I'm asking isn't just to enrich myself, but to let others know, in the most clear and transparent way. That's a hallmark of our project and when we find a deficiency (as this is) it should be corrected promptly. Badagnani 21:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. The best approach here is to start out by just editing the image pages to say what you need them to say, and tell all your friends/colleagues/etc too. (beware: there are specific legal requirements, I'm not sure we've covered them entirely yet?). After doing this for a while, we'll be able to show a clear need to change the menu. and can then ask someone to do so. --Kim Bruning 17:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's get it fixed. I was very specific with my concerns above and pointed out deficiencies in letting people know about photo credit and captioning. How do we proceed now in getting these things fixed promptly? Thanks again, Badagnani 18:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As just stated: start out by modifying the tags by hand, when you submit new images. Let's show people how often it's really necessary first. --Kim Bruning 22:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

lost functionality

On the strict moderating of wikipedia: not being a sysop, I don't see much of it, but I believe there is a list of edits to be patrolled. I think this puts a burden on admins. It's nice for obvious vandalism, but not so good for controversial edits. If an editor does not revert an edit, I assume it means (s)he agrees with it, which is too much too ask. Or is there a middle way? — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision is a test page.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 19:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS

Heya,

Back to you for continuation of discussion on WP:CONSENSUS :) FT2 (Talk | email) 18:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


* poke * ?
Comments and discussion sought :) FT2 (Talk | email) 22:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikimania- Broken server - deadlines - new equipment - flu - ARRRRRRRRRRGH!
Oh right... I mean... I'm a tad busy at the moment. I'll try to get back to you as quickly as possible. I think you do have ~the right idea, but wording could use some work perhaps? --Kim Bruning 15:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


* laughs gently * Isn't that the way it goes!
I left a "chaser" note on the talk page, then saw the above. As long as you're planning to come back on it soonish, then that's fine :) Regards - FT2 (Talk | email) 23:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The first wiki?

Just in case you are interested (and now you should have the time, not having gotten elected to the board and all ;-) Old wiki history is maybe a omewhat minor but still an interest of yours, no? The article on Portland Pattern Repository is kind of confusing. If you feel like it, have a look at the article and the talk. // habj 14:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Spies like us

So, Kim, if they try to bust me, you'll get me asylum, right? :D ~Kylu (u|t) 02:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ignore all rules

Hi. I happened to stumble upon this in WP limbo (no links): Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/more detail. A work-in-progress-not-progressing? - Nabla 01:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings from Boston

Hey, Kim. Just popping my head in to say hello here - I'm back in Boston now, and trying to think of some project ideas to work on for wikipedia-goodness once I get my new laptop in. (I've been a wp lurker for too long.) Got anything you'd like help with? ;-) And thanks for the help with the namecards! (Also, I never realized you were the one to ping me on Meta about Calvinball during the second Wikimania. We must play next year.) Mchua 11:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

9th circuit court hearings

"I feel like I'm in Alice and Wonderland."[1]

Just wait until we hear more "Off with her head!" jokes at work. :P ~Kylu (u|t) 19:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Because that's very important in the clothing business, I've been told. :-) --Kim Bruning 00:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wired.com: "Internet Lies"

[1] One downside to multiple virtual identities. A friend said you'd be interested in this. Creative Impulse 21:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I saw that, but didn't have time to show it to folks myself. It is indeed an interesting article. Thank you very much! :-) --Kim Bruning 00:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm, compromise?

Basicaly I'd just split out poldetail and supplemental essay as a kind of compromise. Please see Template talk:Poldetail for details.
I basically saw no further discussion at Template talk:Supplemental essay and took relevant action today, now that I had some time. Seeing the fact that I got reverted today, apparently the discussion there was not completed at all. In that light, I have posted some additional replies there now.
Note that I do not consider "revert Unilateral action" a valid edit summary, as it both assumes bad faith and violates the basic precept of bold editing at the same time. Briefly, you needn't assume that bold edits are in bad faith. They may simply be just that: bold. A revert may well have been the correct thing to do, provided a good , good faith reason is provided.
Would you be willing to explain the full reasoning behind your particular edit and/or undo it? Please do not assume that I must already know, since obviously if I did, I would not have made the reverted edit in the first place. :-)
--Kim Bruning 18:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

1. I don't believe that the restoration of a 100% redundant template is a valid compromise. Why is this warranted when only one editor has expressed disapproval of the status quo? —David Levy
Fair enough if true. Which template is this template redundant to, according to you? --Kim Bruning
Template:Supplemental essay, of course. They serve exactly the same purpose. —David Levy
I think that in practice, the two templates have very different effects and therefore serve very different purposes. (in fact, I believe that any template that claims it describes an essay, is probably redundant with {{Essay}}, and thus could even be deleted). --Kim Bruning
How, other than the aforementioned problems caused by {{poldetail}}, do the two templates differ in effect? —David Levy
The correct question is what the similarities are. In both cases, the page in question is marked as being related to a policy page. I think that that is roughly where the similarity ends. Could you argue where there are further similarities? --Kim Bruning
Both templates exist[ed] for exactly the same reason: to inform readers that a page supplements another page and is not a policy or guideline. —David Levy
A poldetail goes into more detail about a policy, and may well be strongly compelling, whilst essay is a garbage can category for "none of the above", for some definition of "none of the above". There are several issues with the essay tag, which is why I have been removing it from certain pages where it is not appropriate (especially in cases where edit warring would otherwise occur). I used the poldetail tag on those pages to shield them from compulsive taggers. Before poldetail existed, pages with tags removed were sometimes retagged as essay, or worse, as something else, which might lead to even further edit warring on what template to use (as opposed to editing of actual content, argh!). My experience with the essay tag has thus been singularly bad. (My experience with the guideline and policy tags have not been much better, but that is not the issue under discussion here). I'm quite willing to leave you or anyone else a "Supplemental Essay" fiefdom, if that buys me some peace and quiet to edit - if not to edit the encyclopedia, then at least to edit policy. To be able to have peace and quiet, I will need some placeholder that is not a policy template, guideline template, or essay template, and does not suggest that it belongs in any of those categories, while at the same time leaving people vague as to the actual level of actionability (so as not to collide with Radiant too severely) . Practically anything will do, really, although be aware that wording of such templates must be carefully chosen to prevent edit warring. Once again, a key way in which I have used poldetail is to prevent edit warring, while encouraging constructive editing, something the new template will not manage to do (because it includes the "E" word). I would like to not deal with edit wars while discussing these issues with you. How do you propose we proceed? --Kim Bruning 22:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I propose that we proceed with you dropping your incorrect classification of "essay" as "a garbage can category," which is backed by neither the dictionary definition of the word nor Wikipedia consensus. As this is the sole source of the dilemma described above, that should solve your problem. —David Levy 22:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It is not my personal classification in the first place (in fact I very much prefer yours, thanks :-) ), and it is only incorrect in your view of the world. Nevertheless, if we drop the term "essay" from the template for now, I think we're set. --Kim Bruning 22:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
1. You're the one who has continually presented this "garbage" definition as fact.
2. Said definition is incorrect according to any dictionary.
3. As I've repeatedly noted, the word "essay" was removed from the template's text before you even intervened. —David Levy 22:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
1. Because it is an (unfortunate) fact on current-day wikipedia. I didn't make it up!
2. Duh! :-)
3. Cool, now if we remove it from the template name, we're done. We can deal with the essay problem a little later. Once done, we might come back and rename the template back. It's nice to hear I have an ally. :-)
--Kim Bruning 23:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It's an unfortunate fact that some users abuse the concept, but many others don't. It's quite common for editors to cite essays as valuable advice.
I've renamed the template to {{supplement}}, which hopefully resolves this matter. —David Levy 23:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! I'm sure we can cooperate more in future. :-) --Kim Bruning 23:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope so, Kim. I'd much rather work with you than argue against you.  :-) —David Levy 23:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
2. I patiently waited more than three days for you to address the talk page posts before I reverted. Only then did you reply. Given the fact that there were several unanswered messages directed toward you, it's strange to see you say that you "saw no further discussion" and decided to act. —David Levy
Then we were apparently waiting for each other. :-/ --Kim Bruning
What were you waiting for? I'd already replied to your messages. —David Levy
I was waiting for replies to Radiant. --Kim Bruning
Why didn't you reply to everyone else (until today, that is)? —David Levy
Why should I have? Radiant put forward the key argument, doing so twice would be redundant. --Kim Bruning
Again, Radiant's argument was unrelated to the matter currently under discussion. Several people replied to you, and you ignored us until after I stopped waiting and reverted. —David Levy
3. Why did you believe that the apparent conclusion of a discussion in which everyone expressed disagreement with your actions and agreement with the redirect's creation justified reverting again? —David Levy
At least one person made a strong counter-argument, to which there was no further response. --Kim Bruning
To what person/argument are you referring? —David Levy
Argument by Radiant --Kim Bruning
Radiant expressed agreement with a point that had absolutely no bearing on this template. Radiant was the one whose criticisms of {{poldetail}} prompted its replacement with {{supplemental essay}} (a change that he explicitly endorsed). All of this occurred right there on the talk page. —David Levy
True, but at the same time, he does explicitly acknowledge the other position, which allows for debate, editing, compromise and consensus formation in equal measures. --Kim Bruning
Again, the statement in question had no bearing on matter currently under discussion. Radiant stated that some pages should be tagged as guidelines instead of essays, not that supplementary essays shouldn't be tagged as such. He explictly argued that they should be. —David Levy
Supplementary essays should be tagged as such? I don't understand, isn't "supplementary essay" a term you only just made up? --Kim Bruning 22:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
"Supplementary essay" isn't a new class of page (and the point behind the template's creation was to dispel such a misconception). It simply means "essay that provides supplementation." Radiant agrees that the pages in question are essays (and in fact, was the first person to say so). —David Levy
4. I never assumed bad faith on your part, and I didn't intend to imply that with the edit summary in question. I merely noted the fact that your edit was unilateral (as opposed to mine, which was backed by consensus). This was an explanation of my action, not a condemnation of yours, and I apologize for any misunderstanding. —David Levy
Fair enough, we are both acting in good faith then. Note that I made the edit both assuming that I had consensus, and testing for same. If I was reverted, I would know that this was not the case. In this case, I now know that at least one person (still) disagrees with that proposed change, and I know who it is. (namely: yourself, of course :-) ). See documentation on the Bold Revert Discuss cycle if you aren't familiar. Sometimes BOLD edits in the context of WP:CONSENSUS creation and testing are mislabeled as "unilateral". This labeling is not actually supported by any guideline that I am aware of. But that's details, it's good to see we're both assuming good faith. :-) --Kim Bruning
As far as I can tell, everyone who has expressed an opinion disagrees with you. I don't know what led you to believe that your reversion was backed by consensus.
Yes, I'm familiar with WP:BRD. As I attempted to explain above, I'm not using the word "unilateral" as a pejorative or as standalone justification for reversion. I'm simply describing your edits in contrast with mine. —David Levy
I guess we obviously both thought our edits had consensus. I think that it is equally obvious that we were both wrong on that count. --Kim Bruning An edit can be considered to have consensus if and for as long as it is not reverted or edited in turn
1. Why you believed that an action opposed by everyone to comment "had consensus" is beyond me.
2. "Consensus" ≠ "unanimity"! —David Levy
Strictly, consensus == unanimity. Wikipedia works by rough consensus however. Granted, the principle of rough consensus allows you to ignore my position if it is sufficiently fringe, or if I am uncooperative. I do not believe either to be the case here, however. --Kim Bruning
"1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony." source
But of course, everyone expressing an opinion disagreed with you, and yet you claim to have believed that your position was backed by consensus. Please explain why, as well as how your decision to ignore our posts and revert was anything other than uncooperative. —David Levy 21:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that people disagreed with me that Supplementary essay should be moved to Poldetail. Therefore I have Not Done That (tm). The change I made today was to unredirect poldetail. This is a different action, with a much lower impact, which was much less likely to cause dissent. At the same time, it lowers the chance of trouble occurring on pages where poldetail has been transcluded. Perhaps we ould compromise, by substing the original poldetail instead? You can then use Supplemental Essay on any new pages you feel it is appropriate to use. --Kim Bruning 22:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
People expressed approval of the redirection of {{poldetail}} to {{supplemental essay}} and disapproval of your reversion of said redirection. They did so because they agreed that {{poldetail}} is problematic and should not be used. Thus far, you are the only person to express disagreement with this. —David Levy 22:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
5. The reasoning behind my action is that there is consensus to replace the {{poldetail}} template with the similar {{supplemental essay}} template. This was discussed beforehand and met with approval (except by you) afterward. The purpose behind this change is a desire to eliminate the misconception that we've established a new "level" of project page that serves as as a pseudo-policy "rank." It also serves to merge {{poldetail}} with {{guidedetail}} (which is why neither was simply renamed and reworded), further dispelling the notion that we've created new project page "ranks." As you dislike bureaucracy, I would think that you'd support these goals. —David Levy 19:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that explains the new template. My problem with the wording is that it claims that it is an essay, which is a dangerous thing. My action was to simply split poldetail off until the discussion was settled. However, if that is somehow annoying, I suppose I can wait too. We're already discussing some of this at the relevant location, so let's continue this particular point there! --Kim Bruning 19:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, you said that you read the template's talk page. The background was discussed there, so I don't know how you were unaware of it.
Secondly, there is clear consensus that the pages in question are essays. Nonetheless, that word was removed from the template's text. —David Levy 20:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
A silent majority probably does not agree that those pages should be marked as essays (note the wording). If you look at it from my point of view, you might see that it might in fact be wise *not* to mark pages as such. (and that's one of the reasons I picked up poldetail in the first place) :-) --Kim Bruning 20:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so now you're asserting that "a silent majority" agrees with you. Is that the basis for your perception of "consensus"? —David Levy 21:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I am asserting that a silent majority may not believe those pages should have an essay tag. While I do think this might have a high probability, we do not know for sure, because we haven't asked. This is a different statement to the one you are answering to. --Kim Bruning 21:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Collor

Hello Kim,
Iam waiting for yr reply on Collor. I´d like to know why th eoage was protected. There is no dispute. The user seems to revert, delete and change all my editions according to his personal opinion. As you can see, after I look for a citation, provide sources, and publish, he deleted, reverted, within a few minutes, without ask, discuss, nor justify. And finally after moving my citation to a place I didn´t, and this citation has no relation with the the paragraph where he inserted. And then, of course, within minutes he called his friends and protected the page "against me" --all of that wihitn a few minutes. It´s also strange that all third opionions ar never on my side. Ludovicapipa yes? 14:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Ludovica: There is a dispute--Right now, from the status quo the page is protected in, the only dispute is that the opinion (Faucher and Bresser) stays at the end of the section (which was mine and Carioca's opinion). Other than that, I am fine with the page. It's not that simple: You have had serious issues with OR, NPOV, V, RS and SYN. They're all in the talk page once Kim finds the time to read those 220kb of text =). It wasn't "within a few minutes". I waited several hours, after you broke 3RR, and I waited from a reply from an administrator (Carioca) about what to do. He recommended page protection as an option, and I took it. I wouldn't ask an administrator friend of mine to protect the page--that's a conflict of interest. "It´s also strange that all third opionions ar never on my side." Most people would assume then that they're wrong and accept the opinion of the majority. You just see a conspiracy. I trust Kim to (time-permitting) help us out.--Dali-Llama 15:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Iam sorry, but all discutions so far led to one place: the one I was defending --it´s all published, it´s online. You didn´t win, in fact, you lost. Step by step, you lost even yr own editions: you didn´t mention Collor´s corruption charges were lifted, that there was no legal evidence against him...The text under the subtitle "post Presidency and Courruption charges 9or DOWNNFALL)" were incompleted.Ludovicapipa yes?

So, it makes me believe that this kind of discussion is a waste of time. As much as my editions, since YES it all happened wihtin a few minutes. If the protection request took you several hours, maybe because yr friends were not online. Maybe yr are right by saying that Cuba, Soviet Union, Che Guevara, kidnapping, bank robery, sailor´s revolt ("who just wanted better conditions" (can you cite this?)) are not a communist threat --that alal of these third opinions are not a conspiracy, that revert, delete, and change places wihtin a few minutes are also not conspiracy. It´s also funny that Merquior´s citations (1964 Brazilian coup article) and Bresser´s can´t be "sewed", even though they say the very same thign you insist that any and all links between these 2 authors are some kind of conclusion or synthesis Iam drwaing. Probably because Iam working on a conspiracy against you! Ludovicapipa yes? 15:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The obvious is that Faucher´s and Bresser´s are a broken paragrapg --no relations between the two. Ludovicapipa yes? 15:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ludovica, you're mixing a lot of different issues, some of which are solved, others which were never issues to begin with. The moment your contributions don't violate policy, I'll accept them--as has happened in some cases already. In the meantime, no need to hijack Kim's talk page. He'll start talking soon enough.--Dali-Llama 19:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What I do or not do is up to me. Now you want to censure even my talks. I already know all these excuses you give in order to "proctec" and not violate WP´s rules. As I´ve said, althoug you keep repeating that, I´ve won all editions (what I first wanted to published I did publish), and even correct all of yrs. If it was for my comments, yr editions, this sort of gossip you talk abt Collor de Mello, would be all online. Ludovicapipa yes? 19:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, no need to hijack Kim's talk page. I'm replying in your talk page.--Dali-Llama 19:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

So what's with those particular two authors? --Kim Bruning 22:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The two authors are not the point of dispute: Both adequately meet the WP:RS criteria. The issue is, I'm trying to keep the article as factual as possible, and include opinion only when they meet RS, SYN and NPOV criteria, and do so at the end of the particular topic section--it's bad writing to interject an encyclopedic article with someone's retrospective opinion about the events that happened. It's better to describe the events and at the end of the narrative say what people think about it (if you must do so at all). I wanted to put the two opinion quotes at the end of section. Carioca, as a third-opinion agreed with me. Ludovica did not, and instead of accepting our opinions she simply re-structured the entire section, interjecting fact with opinion. At that point, with Ludovica disregarding a third-opinion for the third time in this dispute, I asked Carioca (who's an admin) what he felt I should do. He recommended page protection but said he could not do so himself due to a conflict of interest. I requested the page protection and it was granted. Whatever else Ludovica is bringing up beyond the quote location are either non-issues or issues which have already been resolved.--Dali-Llama 19:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
That´s what you are saying --that´s not what I wrote. Ludovicapipa yes? 19:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll leave that up to Kim to interpret.--Dali-Llama 19:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
If all issues had been resolved, Ludovicapipa would be a happy person, or at least not frustrated, I think. Hmm, so Ludovicapipa, what's your take on this. Are you happy with the article? What things should change or what things should be kept when the page gets unprotected? --Kim Bruning 21:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Kim,
Yes, I would be glad to show it to you
If you pls have a look at these two links, I´ve translated it for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fernando_Collor_de_Mello#Page_Protected_.28again.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fernando_Collor_de_Mello#Check_for_yr_self
Ludovicapipa yes? 11:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you believe this? One more scandal!!

Hello Kim,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plano_Collor&diff=155649691&oldid=154620498
Pls, have a look at his latest "edition".
1. He deleted the words "end of hiperinflation", when onr of Collr´s most importants achievements is precusely "the end of hiperinflation". He maliciously deleted...I can´t even ask him why....
Are you sure it's actually malicious? Is there any particular agenda that would be served by doing that at all, that you know of? --Kim Bruning 17:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's not malicious. These are changed made to the Collor article (where the text was derived), and the "end of hyperinflation" thing has already been proven wrong (look at the inflation rates for Brazil here (it's in English): remember, the Collor Plan was in 1990 and the Real Plan in 1994. If inflation rates reached 2,000% a year in 1992, it's obvious the Collor Plan didn't end inflation)
2. He is now using some sort of "ref name" tag in order to obstruct my editions;
Besides, yr final answer, whether or not Fauhcer´s/Bresser´s should remain the wya he left, was not yet given; so he should have waited.
The artcile is abr Plano Collro, not abt Collor. So, we must mention inflation indicators. Ludovicapipa yes? 16:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
If inflation indicators are important to that article, then I guess so. I can't write the article for either of you of course: Do you have sources that tell us about these inflation indicators? --Kim Bruning 17:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Obviously using ref tags is not a way to impede editing--I don't what what that's about. Kim, the problem with the inflation indicators I removed were the same ones that a previous third-opinion user (Coren) had agreed with: Ludovica wants to keep a paragraph in the article which talks about inflation rates in 2006 and credits that to the Plano Collor. From the source I've given you above, it's clear the Collor Plan didn't end inflation, not significantly affect it prior to the Real Plan. The source she's provided is a purely factual source (inflation indicators), and makes no assertion that the inflation rates in 2006 are the result of the Collor Plan.--Dali-Llama 17:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Kim oh Kim

I am looking for you. Can you email me? And maybe send me a number where I can reach you? Waerth 22:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"it's in the mail" --Kim Bruning 01:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And one more!: Cardoso´s privatization "is not relevant to this artcile!!

Accoring to IMF´s director Anoop Singh[2], the continuity of this neoliberal program by the following presidents Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Lula da Silva can be exemplified, among other features, by the Embraer, Vale do Rio Doce and Acesita privatization. The implementation of this process initiated one of the world´s biggest privatization program [3] generating public debt relief and highly eficcient multinational companies. Telebrás was privatized during Cardoso´s administration.
Now he deleted the apragrapgh where it is said "Telebras was privatized during Cardoso´s admnsitration". He deleted and said that it´s not relevent for the Telebras article to inform which administration privatized it. Is this some kind of joke? Ludovicapipa yes? 17:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know anything about politics in that part of the world, so while that does make me rather neutral, it also sort of makes it hard for me to judge :-/ . Can you explain to me why that piece of information is important? --Kim Bruning 17:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not necessarily about importance, but about relevancy (yes, there's a distinction). This piece of information may be important for the page on FHC, Collor or the Plano Collor, but on a particular company's page, it's not relevant. We can talk about the company's privatization, but we don't need to go off in the ether talking about how one president's economic policy followed the next. --Dali-Llama 17:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and the FHC sentence was actually deleted by her as can be seen on this diff. =)--Dali-Llama 17:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It´s VERY important to show the reader how recent is the privaztization process, who started, how, when, it was followe by Cardoso´s, inherited from Collor´s --finally, Cardoso provatized Telebrás. This is history, important for Wikipedia, for article, for information. Telebras is whithin the priv. process --and is one of the biggest companies in this priv. process. The law that authorized this process was made during Collor´s. This is also important to mention.
By saying this is the same as if an editor tells the story of how Telebras appeared, who began to implement the company --if I tomorrow want to tell how Telebras first appeard and whithin which government, this will also be important. Who, how, when it was privatized is just as obvious. Ludovicapipa yes? 17:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
You're not talking about the privatization process. This paragraph is talking about how one president followed another. The latter part of the paragraph may stay with alteration (there's no need for peacock terms), but certainly the first sentence is not relevant.--Dali-Llama 18:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Kim, I think user is in the worng place. Wikipedia doesn´t deserve this. Ludovicapipa yes? 17:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
We have legitimate content disputes, Ludovica. Quit attacking me, this is annoying and counter-productive.--Dali-Llama 18:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Not legitimate. Since I´ve provided links, the burden is on you. Since you haven´t provided link, nor sources, nor citations, you can´t delete, nor revert. You must find a source to prove what you say. It´s not yr argument thta must be used to delte, revert....it´s sources, citations --and even if you provide it, you can´t delete mine, sice it´s just an opposite opinion or citation. Both must reamin online. Am I correct Kim? Since Dali doesn´t provide any citation at all, I don´t find this dispute legitimate at all. Ludovicapipa yes? 18:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
That does not excuse personal attacks. If you have a problem with what I'm doing, go to the administrator's noticeboard and complain there.--Dali-Llama 18:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I did delete this passage. Of course, you say in a was that is bad for Collor. An artcile goal must not be damage Collor´s image --rather only tell who did what and when. These POV words ("However" it was "only" privatized) are aimed at having a negative impact on his image (Collor´s). You don´t need to say "However" (as if couldn´t or didn´t finish his job --also only is POV (by saying that ONLY FHC did it).... Ludovicapipa yes? 17:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"An artcile goal must not be damage Collor´s image --rather only tell who did what and when" You seem to selectively apply this policy: when I try to reduce the article to facts only, and remove opinion, you add it. So is your intention to only have opinions which speak well of Collor? See, this is why all opinion on an article such as this is not a good idea.--Dali-Llama 18:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism, POV and bad faith?
Kim,
Iam sure, all these are heading to these three WP rules:
1. Vandalism: delete wihtout asking, discussing (Telebras article and all others);
2. POV: using the words "downfall", "However it was only" (as I´ve said above);
3. Bad faith: No need to comment....
Ludovicapipa yes? 18:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to turn Kim's page into a shouting match. This is my last post until Kim asks a question.--Dali-Llama 18:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Kim, according to Ludovica ([User talk:Dalillama#Articles here]), she's withdrawing from the debate. Thanks for the help!--Dali-Llama 23:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello KIm,
I´ve changed my mind. Iam still waiting yr reply. Ludovicapipa yes? 10:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


You loose again!

Hello Kim!
Pls have a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Plano_Collor#.27.27.27YOU_LOOSE_AGAIN.27.27.27.21.21.21.21.21.21.21.21.21
He reverted and deleted AGAIN. And "in order to justify" (we all know where it all ends) he said Plan Collor is one thing --and PND or Plano Nacional de Desestatização is another thing!!!!!!!!!!
This link says (above) PND is a part of Plan Collr. Of course, in order to end inflation privatiozation was one of the most imprtant things to do.
Best regds,
Ludovicapipa yes? 18:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Zelia

Hello Kim,
Can you pls look his comments. He reverted Zelia AFTER my justification and even left a comment saying I didn´t justify!!!! LOL.
[2] Ludovicapipa yes? 12:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
And here, although I provided justification, and no third opinion was involved so far, he said I will be block if revert him according to 3RR. The third opinion came after he reverted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#INTIMIDATION Ludovicapipa yes? 12:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Plano Collor

Hello again, Kim:
Don´t you think political matters are TOO emphsized here? The article is abt and economic plan. All references to its economic policies were deleted by the user. And wihtout ask, discuss nor justify, he requested a page protection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plano_Collor Ludovicapipa yes? 12:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment on User Ludovicapipa

Kim, I appreciate the effort in helping out, but after a recent Wikiquette Alert which ended badly, I've ended up filing an RfC/U hoping to get it bumped up to ArbCom. You can find it here. I'd appreciate your endorsement and any questions, comments or concerns you may have.--Dali-Llama 03:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Paper versus online sources

Greetings. Would like to weigh in on this hot debate? Bias in this policy as related to WP:V. - Jehochman Talk 02:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yo

Tried to call you just now. Waerth 19:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

So are you still alive in Thailand? Extremely sexy 21:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Replied to your E-mail.:-) --Kim Bruning 02:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

MFD concerns

Kim, regarding your concerns on my closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Accountability. Perhaps I did not word this the best way, and it can be better stated. A portion of the discussion was related to edit warring over the tagging for this page, and using MFD as a consensus gathering tool to determine it. To that end I judged that the stated consensus at this time was to keep this page, but mark it as {{rejected}}. I stressed the binding part of the MFD, but conditioned it because I know conensus can change; but due to the issues that brought this to MFD in the first place a changed consensus should be demonstrated (suggested the project talk page) before modification. To prevent immediate edit warring I applied a short 10 day protection period to the page, seeing that as analogous to enforcing non-immediate recreation should this have been a delete resolution.

Please let me know your thoughts on this, and any suggested rewording of the closure, I'd be happy to go back and clarify it. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 16:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection on Help:Modifying_and_Creating_policy

Kim, Nice to see you again :) Feel free to change this to whatever you think is appropriate (even remove it). I got involved with protecting this page while doing a cleanup of indef-protected page (see log) and moved it from indefinite protection to 90 days at the time. Note the page has since been moved to Help:Modifying and creating policy, bringing the protection with it, but not the protection log. Thanks, — xaosflux Talk 16:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Foundation issues

Hmm, several comments you have on your user page seem to state that you disagree with some of the m:Foundation issues. Hmmm... it's not like I want to get rid of you or anything (seriously, you seem like a nice dude! :-) ) but have you looked around at some other wiki sites to see if you might agree with one of those more?

Oh, and the above image uploads, yeah, that kind of sucks. :-/ There's all kinds of legal issues with images and other multimedia that we simply never have with text, and we really need to do some more thinking on how to get this through to people in a more user friendly way, so that nobody's time is wasted and everyone can be more productive. :-)

--Kim Bruning 06:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. Other wikis? In the minds of most people, this IS the wiki. There are other spinoffs of wikipedia created by people like me, but I like this one, I just think some people take it too seriosly[3]. See, I just cited my sources. The source is my own wiki. I stick by my personal wikipedia rules, and perhaps I should take it up with the Foundation. Many people in this situation may link to Mr. Wales's "no rules" policy.
Look at this page. In short, I uploaded the image on the left in this picture to replace the one on the right. The user tagged it for deletion while I was on vacation and I returned home to find the image deleted, and apparently nothing could be done about it. The PD version is just terrible, but the "copyrighted" one is stunning. -Henry W. Schmitt 07:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Edokter RfA

Dear Kim Bruning,

Thank you for your participation in my Request for Adminship, which ended succesfully with 26 supports, 3 opposes and 1 neutral. A special thanks goes to Rlevse for nominating me. I appreciate all the support and constructive criticism offered in my RfA. Please do not hesitate to point out any errors I will make (unintentionally of course), so I won't make them again. Please contact me if you need anything done, that's what I'm here for!
— Edokter • Talk • 13:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Edokter

I think this message was intended for Jmlk17 (talk · contribs) - I supported the RfA ;) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus found through editing

I replied here. — aldebaer⁠ 19:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

I recall you proposed, or heavily supported, an alternative to RfA based on the WP:PROD model. I didn't support, but if you still have anything to add to the debate above I guess it would help. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 20:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


Proposed project: OS Development

Hey Kim Bruning

I have recently put in a proposal for a project on OS Construction at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#OS_Development

I currently trying to rack up support for this project (your one of the first people I have spoken to), and I noticed you have edited some OS related articles, and I am wondering if you would be interested in the project?

Jamie

Jatos 20:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a thanks and kudos Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! for a great idea! (I'm still chuckling!) // FrankB 18:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Community noticeboard

I remember you started this page. Did you mean for it to be a community ban discussion page or a general noticeboard? I was surprised when it changed into one as that's not what I thought it was for, and I'm just curious. Milto LOL pia 23:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I intended it to be a friendly general noticeboard, as opposed to the somewhat acerbic admins noticeboard. --Kim Bruning 17:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA questions

Oops. I nearly missed those questions you added! I'll try to find time to answer them today, but if not I'll definitely answer by tomorrow. I realise your mention of author in the policy trifecta question was generalising, but I kind of got the impression from your question that you might have been the author, so I had a rummage round in the page history. The earliest edit (from 29 April 2005) is here, with the edit summary "Since the policy trifecta appears to have gathering support..." - do you know what the history was previous to that? Carcharoth 10:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Simplified_ruleset#Historic_information --Kim Bruning 23:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I've now answered the question. Hope you don't mind that I've used that link in the answer! :-) Both optional questions now answered, and thank-you for asking them! Carcharoth 02:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Kiwi

I must say the Kiwi in klompjes put a smile on my face :P (I randomly run around wikipedia looking for something to do that, it's nice to find it occasionally) Dureo 03:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA Questions

Hello! I've answered 1/3 of your questions, however I've stated a comment on my RfA and would like you to clarify the definition of your first two questions. Thanks. Rudget Contributions 12:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Rudget Contributions 13:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey Kim! Unfortunately, you didn't vote in my RfA before it's closure, but it doesn't matter anyway because it didn't succeed. Thanks for asking the questions, and I've gained a lot of experience from this situation so hopefully I'll pass my next one. Sincerely, Rudget Contributions 16:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

regarding Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't be a dick (3rd nomination)

I got your "warning." I would not do that again based on what you said. But could you at least show me where the policy is? Not that I don't believe you, but it is good for me to take note of that policy, so that I won't violate it again. The link you show me is not really a policy. It is just some conversations between some editors. Chris! ct 23:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. As you may be aware, it was closed as "no consensus". Since your vote was one of the reasons why it did not succeed, I would like to personally address your concerns so that I can reapply successfully. Your concern was "Rather than figuring out ways to compromise, you seem to state that you'd prefer to enforce strict rules."

I can assure you that this is far from the truth. My experience on Wikipedia has been filled with compromise and discussion. For example, at Talk:O. J. Simpson#Unsourced information, I explained my reasons for wanting all unsourced information removed. However, since other editors disagreed, I backed off and allowed the content to stand as they wished.

Please let me know if this addresses your concerns. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(replying to message on my talk page) - Thank you for your reply. Yes, I understand that all policy is flexible and is not set in stone. Rules may be bent or ignored for the greater good, so to speak. But when we're finding ourselves regularly bending or ignoring rules for the overall good of the project, we should take a hard look at those rules and decide how to change them so that they better reflect what should be happening.
Now that I've clarified this, I'm wondering: if I were to run for adminship again, would you support me? —Remember the dot (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

 :)

Mercury has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

 :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC) replying with the evil Kim Bruning Smile Of Death(tm) ;-)
Heh, my calls to have mass smiling on your page did not take. :o) Mercury 04:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly a Good Thing O:-) :

“ In all of this we are forgetting Kim's utterly creepy use of smileys. The above is one of the rare instances where he uses them in ways most of us would not consider completely sociopathic, but otherwise, the skill with which Kim can scare the living daylights out of a person with a well-placed ":-)" or ";-)" after a seemingly innocuous phrase is unparalleled. User:JRM · Talk 22:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC) ”

--Kim Bruning (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

nice to hear from you :)

Thanks for the well-wishes! I talk to James all the time -- I'd love to talk to you about the community sometime too! You have a long memory as well :) -- phoebe/(talk) 01:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree

Re: this, I agree. At some point today I noticed that there had been a steady stream of people adding things like that to Durova's talk page. Some probably were socks or trolls, but some genuine users wanting answers seemed to be getting caught in the cross-fire and were indefinitely blocked (some were merely warned). Do you think it is worth checking for collateral damage? Carcharoth (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

me2. I hope someone does check for collateral. Deleting comments and locking the page hurts everyone including Durova. If anyone doesn't see how that gives legs to the next round of stories, they are failed it-getters. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 04:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
WAYYY over my head here but I'm not particularly following. The page is protected with the "inflammatory" statements. Durova has already seen the news link, removed (as SV notes), and also replied. Metsguy probably caught some crossfire which he is on the way to resolving. Is there any doubt Scott Keeler is a SPA? I've been following this a little bit, I haven't seen any other collaterals. There is a disturbing trend towards getting "the truth" out there. Isn't it all pretty much already in the various diff's and Arb case? What more is Durova supposed to be doing? Franamax (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
heh, I doubt it's over your head, and I think your assessment is correct. But I don't think it amounted to "vandalism" (ie Keeler), though very likely SPA. The "truth" may indeed be out there, scattered among diffs and archives, but not for anyone unaccustomed to the wiki-hunt. Durova hasn't specifically responded anywhere I've seen. But my real point is that, the story having broken, and then questions being deleted, pages locked down and questioners banned is a really bad PR move. That's "it". sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 04:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Heya sNkrSnee. If you'd like to help, could you link the arbcom case and RfC's on the village pump, (in case people would like to read them?) --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
short answer: yes, thank you. Longer answer x-posted to my talkpage. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 06:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus being what it is, some folks approached me and explained that Durova is feeling pretty bruised by all this, so they suggested maybe we could direct everyone to the village pump and have some more detailed discussion there. <scratches head>, it's not perfect, but it achieves most of what I wanted to do. See: [village pump here]--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds (hopefully) good to me. People aren't going to stop coming (and trying to stop them is probably counter-productive), I'm mainly concerned by the flood on Durova's talk page. I doubt there's much difference, on the receiving end, between one person adding the link with a snarky comment a thousand times, or a thousand people doing it once, each. I'd like to follow Durova's lead on the handling, if possible, but until I know more about her feelings, I'm not inclined to let that sort of poor treatment continue (acknowledged that people don't mean it that way, necessarily, but that's how it's happening). – Luna Santin (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess the compromise would be to use roughly the same procedure as for ForestFire... have a note at the end of the page that points to the village pump discussion. That way we redirect the stream of people to a place where we actually know to discuss with them in a useful and constructive way, and Durova gets some peace and quiet as well. Does that sound like a decent thing to do? --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I might say the top, but otherwise I can't think of any other long-term viable solution that doesn't suck. :p – Luna Santin (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I've made a clunky first try. Feel free to edit! --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Pretty un-clunky, I think that's a pretty good solution and made a tiny change. Franamax (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I like it. I'm mainly concerned people inexperienced on Wikipedia won't think to check the bottom of the page, so I added a little box up top which links to your notice (and the VP thread). Seems like these can co-exist, but if you disagree I won't be bothered much. Beyond that, just want to double-check that the use of =Top heading= was intentional? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought maybe it would make it stand out more... otoh... is it too big? --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to tinker, it's not often that I come across a need for something like that. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'll let you guys handle this the way you think is best. You have a little more distance than I do. Whatever I've said has been construed badly, misquoted, or ignored. So please just let people know I'm sorry about the mess and am doing other productive work while things settle down. DurovaCharge! 06:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hang in there! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm hoping this eases some of the flood on your talk page, if nothing else. Hopefully you have people you can talk to, but if you need I'm available by email or IRC. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Kim. Hi Luna. I'm easy to reach by e-mail. But as you probably know I never do IRC. DurovaCharge! 07:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:collateral damage, the other case was User talk:Metsguy234 - that is waiting for Neil to come back online. I haven't been through the entire recent history of Durova's talk page to see if other (possibly good-faith) accounts were blocked, but an AN/ANI notice might be a good idea to help other learns for the future? Carcharoth (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(an impolite message)

Know who the next ionas sock is? Might I give you a hint?

Go back to the fucking Nazis and Stalinists of your ilk, you fascist Nazi asshole. Maybe you can go torture some Jews if you like, and meet with der Führer a spell. 'Kay?

Fucking Durova, "abusive sock", and then calls everyone to disagree with her, "troll"? I got somethin for her. [[Image:Middle finger.JPG|thumb|155px|That's right.]]

You fuckers @ the hive must think you're Übermenschen or something. Have fun, the rove of drama 20:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I've talked with several people from wikipedia watch, and they were very nice, polite people, even if we didn't always agree on things. I'm dissapointed that you're not one of those people. You are not doing that community a favor by posting messags like this.
In the mean time, did you have issue that we can try to solve?--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know they had a cure for Tourette's. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 05:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
For consistently keeping a cool head while being active in difficult debates. Chardish (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:CON

Hi Kim, just curious to see if there was consensus for this change. This wording was only introduced a few days ago and I only noticed it yesterday.... Dreadstar † 22:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It more accurately reflects how consensus works, afaict. All policies/guidelines/essays are intended to be descriptive of actual practice, and this change seems to make the page more accurate. Does that answer your question? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Not really. The current wording seems vague and something that can easily be misunderstood or misused. Was there a comprehensive discussion on the new wording? At this point, I have to disagree with the change. Dreadstar † 00:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Aw, heck, maybe I'm being a bit too nitpicky. I'll let it settle in, it may be just fine or just need a little tweaking to establish that there's more to a "bold edit" consensus change to policy than merely a bold edit, I think there's a bit more to it than that. A bold edit might just go unnoticed or not receive enough attention even in the limited curcumstances provided. And, to tell the truth, I'm a little wary lately of changes to policy by, um, certain individuals. Thanks for your answer! Dreadstar † 00:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a bit more indeed, though a bold edit is one way to start. And you're welcome! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
And thanks for getting involved in NOR! Excellent questions there.... Dreadstar † 02:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Sorry, no idea what you mean. Please elaborate. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see now. I have no problems at all with Cogden's edits to the LDS church or anything else, and in fact have hardly looked at them. But it seems from the timing of his becoming involved with trying to change NOR that he was probably frustrated about the primary-source guidelines when editing early church history articles. There's a heavy reliance on primary sources when dealing with Mormon church history, because of the relative paucity of secondary sources (relative to other churches), and the great disagreement between them, so I can see that working within our rules might be frustrating -- although actually I think the rules could cope. I've several times asked Cogden if he can give concrete examples of where he thinks the current primary-source rules would prohibit legitimate material -- because if those examples exist, I'd like to do something to help -- but he hasn't come up with a clear-cut example so far. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Darn. I'd hoped there would be a pattern there.
Well, while we're talking anyway, would you like to try to help COGDEN improve an LDS church article (up to GA level, for instance), to see what he's up against? --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Um, not really, no. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 08:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please check your mail

Cheers! — Sebastian 18:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply

No, it is you who are subverting the processes here with your constant and persistant POV pushing at several core pages of WP. You seem to have become a virtual single purpose editor and make little contribution to the actual content of the encyclopedia. I think that you should really take a good look at your performance at WP and stop slinging about accusations of edit warring and improper conduct. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


Kim, we have a history of disagreement, and are unlikely to find a middle ground here as I absolutely dispute the entirety of you last three comments at my talk page. We have both stated our cases at the pertinent pages; others are now involved and I suggest that we each stand down and let the process continue with other participants. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Tx

[4] --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The Table

Kim, here is a copy of the glossary as it was: [5].

Notice that we are trying (and not always succeeding, but trying) to represent each column as an indepently sourced glossary. Had they been three separate pages they would have had similar content, though a different format. The only advantage was in putting them side by side so that other editors could avoid obvious landmines, like saying "Christian" when you mean "Gentile" or saying "Christian Bible" when you mean "New Testament" (and not both testaments as Christians have in their Bibles). There is no purpose in saying who's right. Although I used to be a pastor and converted to Judaism, I really have no interest in who is right. I'm simply interested in people being able to communicate the meaning they intend to a mixed audience. Seeing the parallel glossaries, an editor can check his terminology and see if there is a potential for his wording being misread. That's it. It wasn't originally an article until people started calling for it to be one. It was a tool on a talk page. Again, my only agenda is to create a tool so that editors can make sure that mixed audiences understand the same meaning he is attempting to convey. A corollary was to avoid citations that only work within a single paradigm. Lisa had one citation that said, for instance, that belief in the Trinity is "idolatry for Jews, but not idolatry for Christians." What the source MEANT was that it is "idolatry for Jews, but not idolatry for Gentiles." A glossary such as this would enable neutral editors to communicate to all audiences, and give the same meaning to all audiences. Right now Jewish articles and Christian articles are somewhat misdirecting to the different audiences.

I really have nothing against Messianics either. But I do think that their use of terms is unhelpful to clear communication. It's not a theological objection, but instead an editorial objection.

Lisa, on the other hand, does have a theological agenda. Polemics of any kind are horrible things for an editor to deal with. They just muck up everything.

I hope that helps.Tim (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Diffs

Kim, you asked for diffs. I posted this on Bikinibomb's talk page, but I'm posting it here as well, in case you don't see it. It would have been nice had you asked me, rather than simply accepting the inventions of Bikinibomb and Tim, but here you are:

An anonymous person did this, to which I responded with this. Another anonymous person (I suspect that both anonymous people were Bikinibomb) did this. As I'm sure you realize, putting quotes from Mark into the Jewish column is highly inappropriate. Bikinibomb then did this, adding Jewish sources which referred to an obscure symbolism for figs (though not for fig trees), and left the blatantly Christian material. I responded with this. Yes, I removed the whole thing, rather than just the Christian part, because even the sources that Bikinibomb put in had nothing to do with fig trees.
Bikinibomb then did this, changing the name of the row from "The Fig Tree" to "figs". A more blatant example of gaming the system would be hard to find. So I did this. Note that I did not remove Bikinibomb's sources, despite the fact that they had nothing to do with fig trees. But despite that, he reverted my edit, with the comment "vandislm, rmv sourced info". The only "sourced info" I had removed was Christian material that was inappropriate in the Jewish column. This went back and forth a couple of times before Bikinibomb finally stopped.
The history is extremely clear. Bikinibomb is lying to you about what actually happened, but he can't change the history that's preserved in Wikipedia. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, he's provided a similar diff, but his interpretation of events is slightly different from yours, of course. <scratches head>
You appear to be correct that the source mentions figs, and not fig trees. Interesting.
I'll ponder a bit on this. :-)
In the mean time, would you happen to know if other similar situations occurred while editing, that you can recall? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
There've been a lot. In some cases, it was Tim, rather than Bikinibomb, who was doing the worst of it. Tim's really interested in interfaith work, you see. So when he saw that the cell on Idolatry stated that Judaism holds Christianity to be idolatry for Jews (though not necessarily for non-Jews), he tried to get rid of it, and replace it with a more palatable quote saying that it is "forbidden" for Jews. He fought tooth and nail on this for several days running.
The question isn't really one of vandalism. I haven't accused them of vandalism except for when Bikinibomb kept putting those quotes from Mark in the Jewish column. And I'm willing to concede that perhaps he simply wasn't paying attention to what he was doing (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here -- he hasn't made that claim himself).
The issue is the whole article. Ultimately, the fact that almost every single entry in that glossary has its own Wikipedia article should be sufficient reason to disallow the glossary in the way that they're doing it. The whole thing started on the talk page of Christianity and Judaism. You can look there and see how certain editors (Alastair Haines and Egfrank among them, but Bikinibomb and Tim from the very beginning) were intent on bringing the Messianic issue into things. This is a fringe sect that came into being primarily as a missionary technique used against Jews by evangelical Christians. But these editors decided that it was unfair to treat them as Christians, because they see themselves as Jews, and unfair to treat them as Jews, because the fact that their movement is not Jewish is one of the very few things that all streams of Jewry can and do agree on. So with that as their excuse, they created a table of Christian, Jewish and Messianic perceptions of various terms.
Eventually, Tim moved that table out of the talk page and into its own article. I thought it was a bad idea as a table on the talk page, but it was just a talk page. Once it became an article, I realized what they'd done. It would be like having a "Glossary of Democratic, Republican and Guns and Dope Party positions". The Guns and Dope Party is a fringe party, and presenting it alongside the Democratic and Republican parties on an equal basis would be a joke. So, too, is having a "Glossary of Christian, Jewish and Messianic terms" page
Of course, supporters of the Gun and Dope Party would probably be thrilled if someone were to make such a page. It would give them an undue prominence that they couldn't buy in the real world. But that's not what Wikipedia is for.
At the same time that Tim created this glossary, he also created an article called Glossary of Christian, Jewish and Muslim terms. You can see the AfD here. It went through very quickly, and the article was deleted. Have a look at it, and tell me if you see any reason why that article should have been deleted and this one kept. Notice as well that Bikinibomb was one of the only "Keep" votes in that AfD. I think the main reason the AfD failed with the Messianic article was that I didn't ask for help bringing it, and I didn't do it very well.
In any case, I have been trying to get this article deleted since it was first created. Tim has made a big deal of the fact that I edit it as well. I was even editing it during the previous AfD. That was because I recognized the chance that the AfD might not pass, which turned out to be the case. I'm not quite sure what his point is there. Should I have stopped trying to mitigate the wrong material in the article pending the AfD? Other editors didn't thinks so.
Please realize that I'm not the one who has repeatedly attempted to put Christian material in a Jewish column, and I'm not the one who frivolously renamed the page. Tim and Bikinibomb have huge axes to grind, and they think that accusing me of being the person with an agenda is going to obscure that. I hope they're wrong. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no interest in putting Christian material in a Jewish column. I did try to put an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi (Telushkin) as a source in a cell, and Lisa fought it so hard that it wasn't worth the effort on my part. And THIS isn't worth my effort either. I have a 715 page book with 60,000 notes to proof read for the galleys, and I do NOT have time for this.Tim (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


Replies by Tim
There've been a lot. In some cases, it was Tim, rather than Bikinibomb, who was doing the worst of it. Tim's really interested in interfaith work, you see. So when he saw that the cell on Idolatry stated that Judaism holds Christianity to be idolatry for Jews (though not necessarily for non-Jews), he tried to get rid of it, and replace it with a more palatable quote saying that it is "forbidden" for Jews. He fought tooth and nail on this for several days running.
Correction -- I'm interested in clarity, period. This was an editorial concern. When "Christian Bible" means "Old and New Testaments" to Christians, but "New Testament" to Jews, that's something editors need to be aware of when they don't want to accidentally give incorrect information because of a terminology issue. My objection to Messianics is less theological and more editorial. By using Jewish terms in Christian ways it can create havoc to an unwary editor. My objection to Lisa's cell was primarily her use of the quote that said that the Trinity was idolatry for Jews but not for Christians. Well, Jews who believe in the Trinity ARE Christians. What she means is that it is idolatry for Jews but not for Gentiles. I ultimately created a reading in that cell that Lisa herself said she had no objection to after that last AfD fiasco. My agenda is for Lisa's readers to get the same meaning that Lisa's fingers are trying to convey. That's basically it -- other than vandalism problems and her unsourced OR wars against Bikini's citations.Tim (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The question isn't really one of vandalism. I haven't accused them of vandalism except for when Bikinibomb kept putting those quotes from Mark in the Jewish column. And I'm willing to concede that perhaps he simply wasn't paying attention to what he was doing (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here -- he hasn't made that claim himself).
I agree that those quotes were not well placed, but Bikini was well intentioned. The Mark quotes were from the Jewish response to Mark in the JewishEncyclopedia. The SOURCE was Jewish. It was not supporting Christianity in a Jewish cell, but giving a Jewish response in a Jewish cell -- which by itself is fine. I defended Lisa that day, however, on the idea that figs are meaningless to modern Jews, regardless of what cites Bikini had found. Bikini's conclusion was incorrect, but the methodology was correct. Lisa's conclusion was correct, but her methodology was incorrect. I was attempting to reach common ground when Lisa hijacked the page.Tim (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't hijack anything. I saw a post from an admin saying that the results of the AfD hadn't been heeded, and that the article needed to be changed to a list. So I did that. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The issue is the whole article. Ultimately, the fact that almost every single entry in that glossary has its own Wikipedia article should be sufficient reason to disallow the glossary in the way that they're doing it. The whole thing started on the talk page of Christianity and Judaism. You can look there and see how certain editors (Alastair Haines and Egfrank among them, but Bikinibomb and Tim from the very beginning) were intent on bringing the Messianic issue into things. This is a fringe sect that came into being primarily as a missionary technique used against Jews by evangelical Christians. But these editors decided that it was unfair to treat them as Christians, because they see themselves as Jews, and unfair to treat them as Jews, because the fact that their movement is not Jewish is one of the very few things that all streams of Jewry can and do agree on. So with that as their excuse, they created a table of Christian, Jewish and Messianic perceptions of various terms.
Lisa argues that this is OR on the one hand, but redundant on the other. When Lisa makes up her mind on which point to make, I'll respond. Right now she negates herself.Tim (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
No contradiction. Articles exist for almost all of the items listed in that article. Thus, having a glossary page is redundant. But then you and Bikinibomb took that redundant page and added your own OR. Why are you playing word games? Honestly, Tim. Do you think you're fooling anyone? -LisaLiel (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Eventually, Tim moved that table out of the talk page and into its own article. I thought it was a bad idea as a table on the talk page, but it was just a talk page. Once it became an article, I realized what they'd done. It would be like having a "Glossary of Democratic, Republican and Guns and Dope Party positions". The Guns and Dope Party is a fringe party, and presenting it alongside the Democratic and Republican parties on an equal basis would be a joke. So, too, is having a "Glossary of Christian, Jewish and Messianic terms" page.
The comparison included Messianics because that was the biggest source of confusion the editors were dealing with on the Judaism and Christianity talk page. I think their term switching is editorially significant, regardless of their size. To see how significantly disruptive a minority can be to the majority -- I offer as evidence the continuing fiasco with a minority called "Lisa." Disruption is significant because it is disruptive, not because the disruptive people are few.Tim (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The vast majority of people have never run into the fraudulent term-switching used by MJs. Tim, of course, would like to remedy this. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course, supporters of the Gun and Dope Party would probably be thrilled if someone were to make such a page. It would give them an undue prominence that they couldn't buy in the real world. But that's not what Wikipedia is for.
Lisa is the perfect example of how clarifying disruption before it creates havoc is NOT giving undue prominence. Messianics entered the table because they were the source of the confusion in the discussion on the talk page. They remain a source of confusion, and Lisa's current version of the glossary is ENTIRELY Messianic now, improperly blending Christianity and Judaism together as if they have the same use of terms. They absolutely do not.Tim (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with what Jossi did in adding the intros from those articles. A list is fine, if it's a list of terms used by Christians and/or by Jews. That way, users who are interested can go to the specific articles and look there for how the terms are used. Messianics weren't a source of confusion. Bad faith arguments by certain editors was the source of confusion. Messianics were merely the tool being used. If it was asserted that "Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah", certain editors, in bad faith, would comment that "That's not true. Messianics do." The proper response to that is that Messianics do not count as a Jewish view, because although some of them are Jewish in origin, their religion is Christianity, and not Judaism. Instead, you chose to address the foolish claim as though it had significance. You contributed to the confusion by so doing, whatever your intent might have been. -LisaLiel (talk)
At the same time that Tim created this glossary, he also created an article called Glossary of Christian, Jewish and Muslim terms. You can see the AfD here. It went through very quickly, and the article was deleted. Have a look at it, and tell me if you see any reason why that article should have been deleted and this one kept. Notice as well that Bikinibomb was one of the only "Keep" votes in that AfD. I think the main reason the AfD failed with the Messianic article was that I didn't ask for help bringing it, and I didn't do it very well.
I created it at Lisa's insistence. It died immediately because Lisa's idea was flawed: Muslim terms do not create confusion between Christians and Jews, and so therefore such a glossary was unnecessary. It was Lisa's insistence. I bowed to her wishes, knowing it would die, and so it did.Tim (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the umpteenth time that Tim has put this lie out there. I did not insist anything of the sort. If I've been remiss at all, it's in not calling bulls*** on Tim every time he's made this ludicrous claim. I made a comment along the lines of, "I could see if you were doing a glossary of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, since those are all major religions, but this thing with Messianic is ridiculous". No one could, in good faith, conclude that I was demanding a glossary of that type. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
In any case, I have been trying to get this article deleted since it was first created. Tim has made a big deal of the fact that I edit it as well. I was even editing it during the previous AfD. That was because I recognized the chance that the AfD might not pass, which turned out to be the case. I'm not quite sure what his point is there. Should I have stopped trying to mitigate the wrong material in the article pending the AfD? Other editors didn't thinks so.
Lisa is a disrupter and a vandal, and after vandalizing a page she tries to convince people that the vandalism should be deleted. Well, this time I agree with her. Her vandalism should be deleted.Tim (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I've vandalized nothing. That libel should be retired. It's a pity that there's no rule (that I know of, at least) that forbids people like Tim from making such false accusations. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Please realize that I'm not the one who has repeatedly attempted to put Christian material in a Jewish column, and I'm not the one who frivolously renamed the page. Tim and Bikinibomb have huge axes to grind, and they think that accusing me of being the person with an agenda is going to obscure that. I hope they're wrong. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no interest in putting Christian material in a Jewish column. I did try to put an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi (Telushkin) as a source in a cell, and Lisa fought it so hard that it wasn't worth the effort on my part. And THIS isn't worth my effort either. I have a 715 page book with 60,000 notes to proof read for the galleys, and I do NOT have time for this.Tim (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
So go do your book. I assume it's on Christianity as well. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Kim, Lisa's misdirecting you. THIS is the vandalism diff: [6]. Take a look at how the page was completely blown to pieces by Jossi and Lisa double teaming, without the consensus of the editors. Now, ask yourself, how honest is Lisa being?Tim (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not about "team tagging" as I have never encountered Lisa before. Her arguments above, which you have yet to address, are quite compelling on the other hand... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
And my edit, which you keep labeling as vandalism, was being bold in responding to the concerns expressed by the closing statement in the first AfD. You are werlcome to disagree with me, but calling it "vandalism" presumes bad faith on my part, which is not the case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, while each claims that the other is misdirecting me, the irony is that together you've managed to paint a fairly comprehensive picture of the situation. It might be inadvertent on your parts, but I'd say that together, you've managed to pull off some pretty decent teamwork. <innocent look> That's actually a pretty good start.

I see that the existence of the page itself is being contested, rather than simply some of the content. That is rather tricky, and I'll have to go and refresh my memory on some of the wikipedia guidance pages to see what courses of action are typically recommended. I'll do so after I get a decent night's sleep. Thank you so far! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. The colusion was obvious. As for the compelling arguments... I have five minutes and then I'm done for the night, so I'll look above.Tim (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I never ran into Jossi before I saw his comment on the talk page. The fact that I agree with him doesn't imply collusion. Paranoid fruitcakery aside. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

First, I never added the material from Mark, the anonymous person did. Second, look at his stuff at 68.123.72.85, a lot of weird Christian article category changing activity which is hardly typical of anything I've ever done if you check my history. So I'm not that guy. If I was do I seem like the type that would be afraid to say so?

Third, we will most likely change The Fig Tree to a new name about all biblical fig references in general since they are all discussed in that article, this was just discussed before all that happened, see Talk:The_Fig_Tree. So there is no "gaming" the system by calling it "figs" since it is a general concept present in both Judaism and Christianity, but it was an attempt to pacify Lisa. If one looks at the source:

The "charoses" should be made from fruits that were used as metaphors for the Jewish people, for example, figs, as [the Song of Songs 2:13] states: "The fig tree has blossomed forth with tiny figs"; Rabbi Lobel, torah.org

So who gives a flying flip anyway if it is figs or trees, same thing in Judaism. A lot of Jews also know about its symbolism as its one of the fruits of Seder, and in Jeremiah and other books. So Lisa was just lying when she replaced my sourced info with "no symbolism at all to Jews" just as she did with Jewish hell and other concepts she's rather not have in common with Christianity. Just more BS and defending of it by other editors who are either really dense or knowingly covering for it. -Bikinibomb (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

... and thanks for the kind guidance... If everyone exhibited your gentle demeanor in IRC, it would be wonderful! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Lessons Learned

Final points:
  1. Good faith practices - Bear in mind that had Jossi entered into the discussion and reasoned with the editors, this would have never happened. Lisa's been mostly under control.
  2. Methodology - From time to time Lisa insists on her POV. 99% of the time I agree with her POV, but not with her methodology. You have to use sources, and it's wickedly difficult to source claims that "this view doesn't exist in Judaism at all." The figs are an example. In 8 years of Judaism I've never seen it. None of the Jewish editors, including Lisa, had ever seen it. Lisa claimed that the view didn't exist at all. Well, the problem with that claim is that it's easily refuted. All you have to do is find ONE example and you have to backtrack (if you're working in good faith), or deny, bombast, and vandalize (if you're not). Was Lisa right about figs meaning nothing at all? Well, on an absolute level, no. On a functional level, yes (none of the Jews had ever encountered it). But Lisa doesn't work with functional levels. She works in absolutes.
  3. Lack of compromise - Another example: the Trinity is idolatry for Jews but not idolatry for Christians, and all Jews regard it as idolatry, period. There are two problems with that statement. What is a Christian? Is a Christian a believer in Jesus? Well, that would include Jews who believe in Jesus. Lisa sort of corrected that in her text, but she left a Kaplan source that still used "Christians" when the writer originally meant "Gentile." So the last AfD occurred because I was insisting that Lisa be consistent between her text and her source. It's a simple fix. The Trinity is idolatry for Jews but not for Gentiles (and then find a source that uses that word). What did Lisa do? Right. AfD. But there is another problem. Do ALL Jews regard it as idolatry, period? Well, no. Not even all Orthodox Jewish Rabbis do. Telushkin is an example. I gave a citation from him that explicitly said that the Trinity wasn't belief in multiple deities, but belief in multiple aspects of the same God -- therefore, while it is absolutely forbidden to Jews, it is not avodah zara (i.e. idolatry). Was I trying to say that Christianity is okay for Jews? What part of "absolutely forbidden" is equivalent to okay? Is this some kind of emotional baggage? Hardly. It's simply my answer to her previous challenge to find ONE Jewish source that said the Trinity was not avodah zara. I did so. Do MOST Jewish sources think it is? Probably. Do ALL Jewish sources think it is? Well, no. Again, all you need is one exception and the point is exposed.
  4. Fairness to other POVs - My POV and Lisa's POV was essentially the same. Our values and regard to the legitimacy of Messianism are similar. Neither of us believe it represents Judaism. Both of us believe that it is for the most part a tactic. Where we differ is that I think that the adherents are sincere. How can you say they aren't? I mean, who bases their eternal destiny in a form of worship they themselves do not believe? Further, all Christians believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. Belief in the Jewish Messiah cannot be an unJewish thing (in their thinking). Therefore, a Jew who believes in Jesus is not less Jewish, but more Jewish. Lisa and I disagree with their belief and even their rationality -- that is, even if Jesus were the Messiah somehow, you couldn't rightly worship him as God. No Messiah would stand for that. It's just not a Jewish thing to do (or shouldn't be... there are the tzadik-idolizers in Judaism who treat the patriarchs and some Rebbes on a viritual Jesus level, but that's a different subject). Again, we disagree with them, but I know them to be sincere (sincerely wrong perhaps, but sincere).
  5. Actual good faith - Our difference is not merely in methodology and fairness to others, however. It's in actual good faith. My first reaction to Jossi was that he had been hoodwinked. But he didn't stop. When I reverted the efforts, that was a perfect opportunity to begin a dialogue to reach consensus. He had missed the first opportunity, but this was a second. What did he do? Right. AfD. My guess is that Jossi hasn't been an admin for very long. Perhaps he's flush with power or something and needs to get settled. But it should have dawned on him that there was a problem when the ONLY person who approved of his edits was the person who is screaming the loudest for the page to be deleted immediately -- even after those edits! Who demands that their own changes be deleted? Someone trying to improve a page, or someone trying to destroy it? That's a good marker for good faith versus bad faith.
  6. Lessons learned - Don't allow someone like Lisa to continue as an editor after such actions as the first AfD. We extended good faith far too long, and it cost us. The assumption of good faith can and must be revoked under those circumstances. Just before this fiasco happened I was actually defending Lisa and trying to work on a compromise between Lisa's more accurate conclusion and Bikini's more correct methodology. But that was foolish on my part, because it assumed good faith when Lisa had proven otherwise. Also, don't assume good resolution from Wikipedia. For the most part, pages work out okay. But there are exceptions where bullies rule the day, and people don't have the time to keep up with it. This is one of those examples.
  7. Most important point - Get real suspiscious when a person is screaming for their own changes to be deleted.
Jossi, I hope you've gained some experience here. They say that wisdom comes from experience, and experience comes from mistakes. I'll assume good faith on your part, and say you've really stepped into it. Do Wikipedia a favor and spend a little time in discussion trying for consensus before being so bold as to delete 90% of the text on a page. And if such boldness is reverted, use that as a hint that some discussion is needed before strong-arming with an AfD. I know that power can make a person too rash, even wiki-power. So, don't be so rash. It takes more time on the front end, but avoids wasting months of other people's time and destroying a lot of good will on Wikipedia.Tim (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I certainly learned a lot, namely that you can be easily misunderstood when WP:OWN comes to play. I only had the best of intentions which you read incorrectly. Should I have been more eloquent in my explanations for my actions, yes. I am an experienced editor and admin (check my page), I am proud of my work here, and I have seen enough content disputes to know that if you stick to WP principles, you get there in the end. And we are making progress now in that article, so all is fine. Best articles often get written when there is a vigorous debate and many eyeballs on it than just a a few pairs... You have now some of the best editors in WP interested in the article and that is great! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please change the name back to "List of Christian and Jewish terms"?

Kim, Tim changed the name of the page to "Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms" as a slam at me, because he felt that having a list of Christian and Jewish terms by themselves was effectively Messianic in nature. Please see this diff. His comment was "moved Glossary of Lisa's terms to Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms over redirect: It's enough. In this case, Messianic Judaism = Lisa."

That's no reason to have this article. It started as a list of terms used by Christians and Jews, and should stay that way. Freezing it with the title that Tim put on frivolously and as a personal attack against another editor isn't right.

There is no call for a Glossary of MJ terms. Even Tim never suggested doing that. This originated as a glossary, or list, of Christian and Jewish terms. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD

An undifferentiated list of Jewish and Christian terms together violates NPOV by treating two separate religions as the same religion. This page MUST go away, or revert to the earlier NPOV format.Tim (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Cancel that. The page has reverted to my original logical format, differentiating Christian from Jewish terms, and citing controversial ones. It is now the same page that received both AfDs unjustly. The only difference is the format. But, thankfully, it has returned to the NPOV I originally provided with the table.

If the reason for the AfDs is the fact that people can't read a table, that's... incredible.

Thank you for whatever you did to eliminate the Messianic blending Jossi and Lisa created.

However, since Lisa is still there, and unless I can get some kind of assurance (and apology) from Jossi indicating such abusive treatment will not happen again, I will no longer participate. I have better things to do with my time than to have them monumentally wasted.

Again, thanks for whatever you did to preserve the original integrity of the page.Tim (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Um... for the record, Kim didn't do anything. I did. And the current format is nothing like your "original logical format", since it doesn't allow for the original research and POV material that was in your table, and it doesn't include a Messianic column, which only muddied the waters.
If you feel your time was wasted, I'm sorry for that. I suggest that if any of the content you created in that table was neither OR nor POV, you simply take it from the history and add it to the articles to which they belong. There's no need for anyone's time to be wasted here. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Tim, what counts is the end result... We are getting there albeit much to and fro and massive misunderstandings from all sides. Let's now edit! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I need some help to leave comments in Comparison of one-click hosters

Talk:Comparison of one-click hosters
My comments have been kept censored and I was being banned by the admin hu12. All comments have been removed (except a few leaving initially). I just want to leave comments to clarify my points. However he censored most of my comments and so my comments become misleading.

I have some questions I want to ask. I don't really know how this Wikipedia works. How could this seem to be fair if the admin:

  • is involved in editing the article
  • is involved in discussing and arguing in the page
  • is involved in making minor rules regarding how we should edit this page #1
  • is involved in the interpretation of the principles like Notability #2
  • is involved in enforcing those rules interpreted or made by him
  • a user has requested third-party comment about this page, but it turned our to be the same guy (Hu12) who gave a comment

(#1:He said an entry cannot be added to the article if it doesn't has an article in Wikipedia, but I couldn't find this rule anywhere. I asked him to quote the exact passage which says this, but my comment was simply censored and banned [Reason: harassment])

(#2:He said the same degree of standards required to create the page is the same as to add an entry / sentence within the article. It is what notability means. I said the same degree of standards are lower when you just mention it in one line or two. The impact and exposure is different, so do the thresholds)

He has a conflict of interest. He is acting an editor, arbitrator, legislator, judge, police at the same time. He can even censor comments. How come this kind of behaviour is accepted in Wikipedia?

I got fed up by his actions. I don't know how to criticise him for bending rules, taking multiple roles and abusing power without offending him. -- OM 12:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

PS:

  1. Am I allowed to edit my own comments after posting?
  2. Am I allowed to insert comments in the middle because I want to reply to that comment, or should I always leave the new comments at the bottom?


I also found this rule. I want to see how the admin Hu12 explains it. Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes:

“ Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.

An exception is made when dealing with unsourced or poorly sourced contentious biographical material about living persons. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. (See the BLP policy.)

 ”

We are arguing in the page. He removed my comments and banned me. It is cleary against the rule specified above.

Can I ask...

..have you ever been an administrator? Pretty random, but investigative nevertheless. :) Rt. 20:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I was an administrator for roughly a year, after being promoted in july 2004. I retired for many many reasons, partially to prove you can still influence wikipedia very well without the admin bit (it took people over 6 months to start noticing I had handed it in, in fact ;-) ). By now an admin bit is actually almost a hindrance for maintaining the wiki, so there you have it. :-P. The other reason I handed in the admin bit is because it makes you stressed out in particular ways that cause you to eventually burn out (I still remember ww's comment (14.) on my RFA.). wow, I remember there was only 1 edit-counter on the RFA, everyone else checked all my edits. Can you imagine people still doing that these days? :-O
During my time as an administrator, among other things I was the first person to seriously block Ed Poor [7], during the notorious "deletion of votes for deletion" affair (to prevent him from deleting an RFC I had set my eyes on :-P) , I untangled the recursive GNAA deletion deletion, and AFAIK I am still the only admin to ever have made a valid block for violation of WP:IAR [8][9] ;-).
Another thing I did during my time as admin was convince User:Bishonen to run for adminship, and IIRC she was the first admin with over 100 supporters. As I'm currently not entirely certain of the utility of adminship, I no longer nominate people for admin.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
And here's the concise explanation why I no longer have/need admin tools: [10] --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll reply later today. :) Rt. 14:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah sorry about that! I must've forgot, maybe its the tardis. :) I was asking because you have air about yourself that says your an administrator, but I couldn't find your RFA and nor were you listed as an admin on listusers. I knew from my old RFA, which unfortunately closed before you got the time to read my answers to your questions, that you had an extensive policy knowledge and were willing to "wield the mop" (or whatever the current equivalent is). I've also become more involved in RFA the past few weeks, and I wanted to get a better understanding of who was "around the 'ole place." I may also take this time to say what a great job you are doing, even though by the length of this talk page I guess that already evident and reflects the dedication you put it. Best regards, Rt. 19:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I've just read through your comments again, and I am quite saddened by your desysopping. Ah, and a (really belated!) happy new year! :) Best regards, Rudget. 21:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How DARE you?

How DARE you try to calm people down? Don't you know people enjoy being upset? ;-)Tim (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry that did not go anywhere. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm calm, and I'm happy that you're participating. If the "committee of uninvolved admins" proposal currently at ANI gains consensus, I hope you'll volunteer to be on the committee. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

More of a Regrouping

Kim, thanks for your note. I've tried to explain to Jossi what my original (and continuing) intention was. It was a disambiguation tool. Wikipedia LIKES disambiguation, so it shouldn't be a problem if it sticks with that. What happened was that "education" and "disambiguation" got bloated together into an unmanageable colossus. Lisa's interest was education -- to tell people what words mean. My interest is in disambiguation -- if a word could be misread, try a synonym that won't.

Lisa also didn't like having a Messianic column. In an effort to forestall further vandalism I'll reconstruct the table without all the bloat (education), and without a Messianic column.

The two are completely different efforts. I have no intention of telling people what words must mean (so I have no interest in Lisa's glossary). I'm only cross referencing possible meanings that may not be what the writer intends, and an unambiguous alternative (and I hope Lisa has no interest in that).

For instance: "Bible." Well... who's Bible? Jewish? Christian? Protestant? Catholic?

And one step down: "Christian Bible." Well... which meaning? The Jewish meaning of "New Testament" or the Christian meaning of "Old and New Testaments"? Assuming the Christian meaning doesn't work because Christians don't normally use the term "Christian Bible." That's normally a Jewish term.

Anyhow -- I'll truncate the table on my name space and send you the link when I'm done before it launches. Does that sound fair?Tim (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

PS -- Jossi never could explain back to me what my table was. He simply froze the conversation and insisted it go to Lisa's glossary (which it has no relation to). When I launch, is there a way to get an admin or two to at least understand what disambiguation is before I run into another debacle? I don't mind people disagreeing with me. But when a person can't even state correctly what he is disagreeing with, it's not helpful.Tim (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

We may need a nudge in the right direction occasionally at Glossary of Messianic terms.Tim (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

rollback

I gave you rollback. Remember how to use it? ;-) If you don't want it, we can take it away, I know you sometimes have "principles" about such things. Cheers, NoSeptember 18:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the words

But I think I've done enough damage for one day. There's a time to fight, and there's a time to say - either this will be taken up by others or I'm doomed anyway. My time to go have a shower, kiss my kids, and forget this whole thing, is long overdue. signing off.--Doc g - ask me for rollback 23:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I need to get rid of that bloody sig too.--Doc g - ask me for rollback 23:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The sig complies with policy, doesn't it? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for rollback

Tut tut. :) Rudget. 23:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFR

Actually, that page is where users can be granted rollback access. It has been one of the most commonly edited pages the past few days.   jj137 ♠ 23:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, but users can also ask an admin directly, right? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Rudget. 23:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I have the impression that people are making a lot of noise about something that is already sorting itself out via the traditional trial-and-error-and-find-consensus-over the best-method-while-working-on-it method.
I think I can mostly keep out of things and just wait and see. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Check out this arbitration request. El_C 23:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Nice to see you, El C (and happy new year too :-) )! I've looked at the request a little earlier today. Does it still look like the request will be rejected? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, likewise! Happy New Year! Looks like it. I didn't get a chance to review it closely yet (same with RfaR#Waterboarding), but I notice all the extra stuff. El_C 23:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, you wrote "And did I mention that anyone who is a fan of Masamune Shirow must be a cool person by definition?". I think that goes without saying. ;) Thanks for the compliment! --Kyoko 20:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be best to post such on Wikipedia talk:Wikiliberalism. Sarsaparilla made similar claims. I glanced over "Larry Sanger's accounts," but again, his claims seem spurious: A subjective perception of how "Wikipedia works" in reaction to adopting a particular policy assumes a social darwinist, behaviorist view, which is erroneous. First off, it does not involve direct study of the statistical relations between variables on Wikipedia, and is a personal opinion not necessarily grounded in facts. Secondly, if we think of individual users as dynamic, the reasons Wikipedia succeeded or failed are uncertain. Social engineering as a whole is pseudoscience. As my philosophy professor once said, "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and again." Third, while the success of Wikipedia may be (and likely is) due to it catching on as a meme (and thus the promotion of "wiki culture") led to its initial popularity (the most important aspect of its success), that's only something worth worrying about in the initial stages. By now, Wikipedia has been referenced in the media so much and is so widely used that "wiki culture" and a lack of individual rights has corrupted Wikipedia. While it has little chance of ever going away, its content is sub-par -- something Jimbo himself admits -- and it is extremely difficult for people to add factual information. Both issues would be dealt with through the establishment of individual rights. Zenwhat (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What was your offer?

What was your offer? Tell me and I will tell you now if I will take it up. Zenwhat (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. "you can probably sit down with a book and a machine and learn enough SQL over a rainy weekend to be able to get nice numbers for your spreadsheet already".
I have struggled to learn basic PHP and JavaScript. Requiring me to learn SQL is unreasonable. At best, I would end up struggling at creating scripts for macro-designing programs to inefficiently turn the data into a spreadsheet manually, but then that would take forever, Windows Vista would probably crash, and I'd probably fail. There are plenty of programmers on Wikipedia who have put effort into completely unnecessary projects, like generating articles on Wikipedia for every radio station, obscure musician, and hamlet in the world. Surely, I thought, one of them could do this?
If that is not the case, I will gladly accept the project, but it will take some time. As it stands now, I still have to write a script to auto-generate to-do lists. For the idea, see my comments on User talk:The Transhumanist. Zenwhat (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I accept your request. What notes do you have? Zenwhat (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A chat session would be enjoyable. When should we do it? Also, using Ethology to explain human behavior invokes Behaviorism, which was popularized by people like B. F. Skinner but is not widely accepted by Psychologists today. Wikipedians cannot be made good editors by putting them in a box, with a reward and the threat of punishment, for the same reason people cannot be made to be ethical simply through laws
  1. The people in charge are themselves within that same box and, themselves -- including you -- are naked apes like us all. The failure of social engineering results from the failure to recognize the impact the society itself has on the engineers, and that their actions are just as much a result of the society, so intentions to change society by force cannot work.
  2. Ethics -- including Wikipedian ethics -- is made up of laws, responsibilities, and duties, but the component of individual rights should not be ignored.
Also, I will discuss things on one condition: That you have the right intention of wanting the Wikipedia project to succeed and that this is not an attempt at reeducation or indoctrination. I would like for you to cite facts -- not vague invocations of authority based on science or experience, but logic based on demonstratable facts. Zenwhat (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Right now, I am in #wikipedia-en as Zenwhat. Zenwhat (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC) I'm here. Zenwhat (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Another idea for you.

A table-generator. You see them in programs like Microsoft Frontpage (or whatever their HTML editor is called now), you used to see it on Geocities' online HTML editor and you see the same idea on Facebook today. Basically, instead of having to figure out what the hell this means:

|-\-\-|||--\||--\column one\\-__\\--:)columntwo||---|\-__--\:(--|--||!|---|

You just click buttons like "create column," and "create row." You can right-click a cell to delete it, edit it, or remove it, and you can click and drag it away to move it around or get rid of it entirely.

The system would be implemented through a "table-making template," that gives you the above options. When you're done, you just remove the template and are left with the auto-generated content.

This would address the Help:Table#Other_table_syntax cons described here without causing any additional problems in and of itself... Except for more work for you, of course.

Zenwhat (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue we spoke of.

I put in an ArbCom request. It's not involving you, but I wanted your opinion: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Austrian_economics

Out of the fear of being perma-banned by a rogue admin, I thought I'd notify you, for my own freedom's sake. Zenwhat (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I like Rouge admins more. Odds of you being banned are fairly low. Odds of you getting into trouble if you don't actually check your assumptions more are somewhat higher. :-P ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Saw several assumption based errors in both your evidence and in the arbcom case, do check yourself more!
I fixed the assertions of mine by Auburn in my evidence page. The evidence is pretty blatant. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Austrian_economics The response is frankly depressing. The arbitrators apparently make judgments based on assumptions of faith without examining the evidence first. Imagine how this would work in court: A white teenager and a black prosecutor walk step into court. The prosecutor hands the clerk his evidence. The judge looks at the prosecutor and says, "You, blackie, you look like a criminal. This case is dismissed," and then he tosses the evidence in the trash.

Whether or not you consider my case convincing, New York Brad's response seems like a satire:

Nothing here approaching the need for an arbitration case, which is the last step in the dispute resolution process. There is no evidence of any attempts at even talkpage discussion of the content issues raised. In addition, portions of the request for arbitration are not comprehensible.

Zenwhat (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've gone to bed. What time will you be awake? It was enjoyable talking to you and I think it's important that we discuss these things, in detail -- not just in case you're wrong, but in case I'm wrong, since I've already shown myself to be a fool on Wikipedia several times now through my tendency to overreact to certain things, though I still find my position somewhat justified. Perhaps instead of discussing the overall problems of Wikipedia, we can discuss the specific problems in my case. They may be a case study of Wikipedia failure. Also, I was thinking: Another good idea to help Wikipedia would be the collection of arbcom decisions as "legal precedents." This would aid in the clarification of wikipedia policy, so that people know how admins interpret things in practice.

Also, I created the following image for my essay WP:Wikiliberalism:

Image:Wikipediamao.png

In case that image "disappears", here is a back-up. [11] Zenwhat (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC) We did touch on that situation during our discussion, but I don't think I recommended starting an arbitration case just yet, you know ;-) (the arbitration committee is the absolute last resort to use, when all else fails). I'm sure you could get some editor assistance to help you sort out the situation quite adequately. If they can't, I can take a closer look, if you like. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would need that. However, I think the ArbCom case is justified as it is. I made some NPOV changes, but I also did some minor copyediting and stuff. Somebody named Tparameter suddenly popped out of nowhere and reverted my edits in full. [12] Again, expecting nobody to discuss their edits, I specifically started a discussion on the Talkpage, saying, "Please discuss your edits." and even linked to it in the summary. The result: Tparameter reverted my edits with absolutely no discussion and moved on.

This has happened with every user I've dealt with there. If you can figure out what I can do, that'd be great. But as it stands now, the responses I've gotten seem so ridiculous. I'd like somebody to take a look at User:Zenwhat/Evidence, since the arbs obviously just saw that I made a few initial mistakes, saw that I invoked more than one admin's name, and thus assumed I was a troll. Now that the page still isn't semi-protected and my ArbCom case appears like it's going to be rejected, I am faced with a horde of editors who are ignoring the D in WP:BRD (after all, BRD is "just an essay"). So, the cycle is bold-->revert-->bold-->revert, and I am left with two options:

  1. Leave it alone and nonsense stays up.
  2. Give in to the will of the majority. Zenwhat (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Simply measuring the growth of Wikipedia isn't really "detailed analysis," but thanks for the criticism. I need it, to improve my article. Zenwhat (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you tell me this sooner and why isn't it up on WP:Statistics? I can't evaluate their methoodology if they don't mention their confidence level, margin of error, precisely how the articles were randomly selected, or release their raw data so that all of those things can be replicated by somebody else. Some of the assumptions are also poor. Only counting reverts as "reverts" if it's in the edit summary is a bad assumption. I admit, though, that's a necessary assumption unless you're going to be a few hundred people to record every single revert and other stat, and so on. Anyway, I'm off to bed. I should be up in about 8 to 10 hours or so. You going to be around by then, maybe, on Skype? Zenwhat (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict... reply to BRD question above) I actually already told you a bit about BRD. It describes observations of some particular consequences of how a wiki works. A sequence of reverts is never infinite. There is a clear, finite length to them. A series of reverts by any one person is always constrained by a ban on edit warring. A series of reverts among some number of people is limited by the total number of participants.

The objective is to find all the serious participants and discuss with them. The speed of discussion with any participant is constrained by their editing cycle/ editing rate. It is typically considered ok to assume a cycle of ~24 hours. If someone reverts, immediately take it to talk. If they do not respond within 24 hours, you can do (rv. No revert reason provided/no response on talk in past 24 hours), and you can be fairly sure that you won't be the person to suffer a block :-). It is highly unlikely that the revert cycle will happen for any large number of times. If someone reverts 3 times in 3 days, you'll have 2 reverts, they'll have 3 reverts, a definite pattern!. Report to AN/I if you like, and watch the fireworks.

If any person does respond, then the time has come to reason with them, which can be tricky :-) Your aim is to get *them* to do *your* preferred changes to the article. Be prepared to compromise. (this might take a couple of days to sort out)

Of course, those changes may then be reverted too. Wash rinse repeat to find the next person.

At some point in time, you'll run out of confrontational people, and with a bit of luck you'll be back in the clear and doing fun editing again. ;-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me guess: Not linked? Look before you type! :-)

Also, I thought this was pretty funny. Doesn't that sort of demonstrate the bad social clustering I mentioned? Try to make an edit to Naruto or Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock. You'll be mobbed. Zenwhat (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see it there specifically, but I'm sure it's there. Now that I actually noticed how much stuff there is on WP:Statistics, there's a lot more stuff I have to dig through before I can say anything further on the matter. Zenwhat (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, try to be careful how you say things. I know you're a nice person and I should not have such an ego that I feel offended, but the way you write comes off a lot of times as condescending. I speed-read on Wikipedia, or sometimes I don't even so much as just speed-read, but just hyper-speed-read. There is so much policy and stuff to dig through. If there's something I miss, just let me know. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A tag I created for my essays and also WP:The Zen of Wikipedia:
WARNING: This essay may contain egoistic foolishness
Do not accept it as true, unless you know it is true, yourself.
Please be diligent and read it mindfully.

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I shall have to meditate on that ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Economics versus Ecology

[[Image:Milton-hand.jpg|thumb|left|A good economist.]]

To frame the debate, from what I understand, it's like this:

  • Economists argue ecology is a sub-set of economics because economics is the study of scarce resources, while ecology is the study of simply natural resources. It discusses "sustainable resources," but it treats them as if they were natural, it has absolutely no clue as to how man-made sustainable resources are actually created economically, and doesn't recognize the fact that humans only care about resources that men can actually use and would find an overall reduction in available resources for the sake of a few badgers and bunny rabbits unacceptable. Biology may be a hard science and ecology may be a sub-set of that science, but ecology deals with the social interactions (Social science) between creatures competing over scarce resources. For this reason, it is a sub-set of both biology and economics. It is a common misconception that economics deals strictly with money, wealth, or human behavior.
Your average ecologist.
Your average ecologist.
  • Ecologists argue economics is a sub-set of ecology, because economics is the study of human behavior with regard to scarce resources, while ecology is the study of all behavior regarding natural resources and more than that, the natural biological systems which govern that behavior and economists simply ignore.

Is that right?

Both may use skewed definitions of the other and it may in fact be more about disagreements over their conclusions and proposals rather than disagreements about the foundations for science. For instance, ecologists as it seems to me reject Rational choice theory, because it leads to the conclusion of Government failure (see Public choice theory). Rational choice theory isn't flawless, but neither are ecological models. Rational choice theory simply needs to be modified to be "Bounded" rational choice theory (with insights from Psychology and Sociology). Similarly, ecologists need to consider the complexity of human action in any models involving human behavior. As it stands, they seem to treat human beings as nothing more than a slightly more intelligent gorilla. Even if peak oil is true, that doesn't imply that government regulators can do anything to stop it or that government intervention would necessarily be successful.

Economists are well aware of environmental problems (a form of market failure), but rather than advocating strict regulation, like rationing oil or strict caps on emissions (both Socialist proposals -- it's true!), they think it's far more productive to work through market forces, such as through emissions trading, which works precisely because it relies upon inherent human selfishness, whereas ecology seems to explicitly reject that fact, believing, "If we could all just work together through government, we could save the world! Give Green a chance!" (See image, top right) I once knew a person who supported Green Economics and they argued for collective farming lest we face "peak food." The ties to Neo-Marxism are quite clear. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a debating site. If you like we can take this to e-mail though. (btw, I know some ecologists, and they don't quite look like that dude on the right. :-P ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
PS. Ecologists are very respected around where I live, especially because of the need to "terraform" things like sea-floor into land usable for agriculture, and to maintain that land in a usable state. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

On Buddhism

Also, one doesn't "convert" to Buddhism, as with other religions. It's certainly possible, but not necessary. Because one doesn't have to have any particular beliefs in Buddhism, other than recognizing its basic assumptions as useful. In the early history, ordination simply involved standing in front of the Buddha or the chief monk and saying, "I seek refuge in the Buddha, I seek refuge in the Dharma, I seek refuge in the Sangha." (See Three Jewels) Today, to become a monk or to "formally" become a Buddhist, some sanghas might have a formal ceremony where you accept the Bodhisattva vows, but it's not really seen as necessary. In fact, Zen monasticism is particularly interesting, because like Hindu gurus, it doesn't involve necessarily involve any formal, central "institution." A Zen teacher is a Roshi and as the article on Roshi says, one common understanding of the term is that, "A roshi is anyone who calls himself by the term and can get other people to do the same."

I am not a sectarian Buddhist, because I draw influence from two main schools: Zen Buddhism, a Mahayana sect, and Vipassana, a Theravada sect. While the two have totally different origins, they ironically teach practically the same thing. In both cases, in my opinion, it is the most rational, internally philosophy there is (largely similar to Existentialism), but it is paradoxically not a rational philosophy at all, and is true for reasons far greater than "internal consistency." Overall, this is unfortunately obscure for a lot of people, because mainstream Buddhism has been corrupted with religious elements, which leads a lot of westerners to dismiss Buddhism out-of-hand as an idolatrous cult. In many cases, it is. I am particularly skeptical of Pure land Buddhism which seems to resemble fundamentalist Christianity (Jesus = Amitabha Buddha) and Tibetan Buddhism which seems to resemble Hare Krishna. Sects from both groups get offended when I say that, but based on what I've seen, I can't help but feel that it's true!

For some good reading material, check out:

  • The Dhammapada: "The way of the dharma," one of the most widely read texts in Buddhism and what could be called a brief summary of Buddhism. There are tons of free translations on the internet, but the best in my opinion is the translation done by Gil Fronsdal, which you can either buy here or listen to for free here.
  • The Kalama Sutta: A particularly influential text in American and European Buddhism, since it emphasizes the importance of rationality and skepticism, while also saying that we should respect "wise men," which in my opinion seems to include the leaders of all major religions, influential philosophers, and scientists such as yourself. In Buddhism, there is "faith," but the actual word is Saddha and doesn't translate well, at least not directly into English as "faith," because it doesn't involve irrational assumptions, the way Abrahamic faith does.
  • The Issue at Hand by Gil Fronsdal: A book written about Vipassana, but which could just be called "basic Buddhism," found here.
  • The Art of Peace by Morihei Ueshiba: He's also the founder of aikido, the first martial art designed for optimal self-defense without causing unnecessary harm. This book is probably on the internet somewhere and, if not, it's probably only a few euros, since it's only about as long as the Tao Te Ching. It's a series of aphorisms. And speaking of which, if you haven't read the Tao Te Ching either, it's worth reading too, and very, very short.
  • Buddhism Without Beliefs by Stephen Batchelor: A best-selling book arguing on Buddhism by an agnostic Buddhist who first was a Tibetan Buddhist, then left it to be a Korean Zen Buddhist, then left that, too, to be a non-denominational Buddhist in the UK. Time magazine's review (on the front cover) reads:

"Batchelor... suggests that Buddhism jettison reincarnation and karma, thereby making possible what he calls 'existential, therapeutic, and liberating agnosticism.'"

—Time magazine

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Mostly finished an essay you should enjoy. A Zen Guide to Editing Wikipedia ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

On your comment

You may wish to rethink this reply.[13] If there's one thing the community can from my mistake, it's that writing up a detailed report and circulating it for two weeks in advance of taking action does not mean people agree with it; it can as easily meant they ignored it.[14] And as Adam Cuerden learned in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman, posting on ANI and getting minimal/superficial response is hardly better. When a Wikipedian mistakes a vacuum for consensus, and acts upon it, implosion follows. DurovaCharge! 08:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus etc.

Kim, you are right that I do not trust a process without a plan nor do I trust the actions of a man without a plan. This is not to say that I don't trust the evolution of WP, or mistrust the intentions and honor of Kim Bruning. I think that WP has matured and grown past the point where we can be informal and reckless in our structure. It is typical of most organizations to transform from early stages where creativity is far more important than order, to a point where there must be a balance. I know that we frequently disagree, but I repspect your opinion. Never the less I do think that you are wrong and I oppose your style. Sorry that we can't agree, but hopefully we can grow toward cooperation over time. --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I don't distrust the consensus process, but I do have a very different interpretation of how it works. I think that the process for editing articles and the process for documenting our policies need to be different. I think that the morass of the notability infrastructure is a fine example of the failure of our processes. --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

To-do list?

Here's my idea: User:Zenwhat/To Do List

There should be enough information to figure it out from there.

Now, I was going to do this myself, but I am not a programmer and after looking at Wikipedia's script tutorials, I became slightly confused.

If you can't do this, that's fine. I posted a request for it at Wikipedia:Scripts#Scripting requests. If you know anybody else that can do this, that'd be great!

I hate having to keep track of a messy watch page. A specific automated to-do list would give me a better overall picture of what I'm doing and how well I'm doing. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Consensus

Good evening, Kim. Would you be offended if I asked both you and Kevin to take a day off from editing those pages and let the rest of us catch up? You've clearly put a lot of thought into this (and even time more writing). The rest of us need some time to filter through and consider what you've both said so that we too can participate in the discussion.

Thanks. Rossami (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Practically made the edits at the same time. I just promised I'll stay off the talk page 'till Monday. I don't mean to be a disruptive influence, but between Kevin and myself two of us, that page is definitely useless. I don't think the arguments between me and Kevin are very useful, so feel free to archive them, at least from my side. Have fun! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers and beers

It's never hard to understand a fine IPA! I look forward to the opportunity to tip a glass. Have a great weekend and thanks for the kind thoughts. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

IPA

Kim, IPA stands for India Pale Ale, and that is my preference for a brew when we sit down together. There may be a possible opportunity if you ever get to the San Franciso Bay Area. I'd love to get you out sailing; we have of the best sailing in the world on SF Bay. Other than that. I'm taking the weekend off from WP. Just got you message when I came to WP through a Google search for some tax info. I hope that all is well with you. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

More propaganda.

Enjoy. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't obey consensus ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say that in Wikipedia policy. *gnaws on your skull* ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Kim, after consideration, I changed my mind again, and yes, I'm going over to Citizendium. I spent a few hours glancing over news articles on Wikipedia accuracy, Wikipedia's own articles on it, statistics, etc, and I am skeptical that Wikipedia can "succeed," but it depends on your definition of "success." The goal of Wikipedia has changed from when it first started and this is demonstrated when you compare Jimbo's earlier statements about how Wikipedia is intended to be a "compendium of all human knowledge," with his most recent statements where he asserts that it's just intended to be basic reference material that people shouldn't use as source material, but should only be used as a starting point. About that last term, "a starting point," I'm confused by it.
You've stated that Wikipedia's inaccuracy is OK because it's simply a lie-to-children. Given the amount of 12-year-olds on Wikipedia, however, and the lack of any credential policy, Wikipedia is more accurately a "lie by children," rather than a "lie to children," which is a simplification of ideas by experts who actually know what they're talking about. Wikipedia is composed of precisely the kind of "children" that need to be lied to (metaphorically-speaking) in the lie-to-children idea. The lie-to-children exists because the average person cannot be expected to be enough of an expert on a topic to be able to give a full account of it. Wikipedia, then, is non-experts all collaborating together to put forth what is deceivingly put forth as pseudoacademic material.
Seeing a number of great editors recently decide to retire, such as User:ScienceApologist, I can't help but notice that it appears that most editors who have a regard for science, objectivity, facts, and so on, eventually snap. Take a look at WP:Expert rebellion. You have four names up there now. Then, compare that with this. I'm not going to let Wikimedia exploit my free labor, so that my good content can be packaged with a pile of nonsense, which is then given away for free, for companies to sell.
Please note some of my arguments here and here.
The only reason anybody can say "Wikipedia is succeeding," is because they've apparently lowered the bar for what an encyclopedia is meant to be, that is, by making an encyclopedia a tertiary source rather than a secondary source, or at the very least, by making it what could be called a "tertiary tertiary source," rather than just a decent "tertiary source," since so much of Wikipedia itself is sourced in tertiary sources and nobody seems to care.
I mean, the idea that Wikipedia has failed is disputed by the fact that most of the same articles on Britannica can also be found on Wikipedia with roughly the same accuracy -- but this isn't much of a "success," persay, because one could gain the same result through particularly clever copyright infringement (i.e., take the Britannica, then re-arrange the words SO MUCH, and add a few new sources, that it's impossible to prove copyright infringement). Since a good chunk of Wikipedia is spam, political propaganda, and fringe views, it hasn't particularly succeeded by any meaningful definition of success.
Most of all -- aside from whether Wikipedia will succeed or fail -- I think I will have a great deal more fun on Citizendium, because there are apparently more experts over there, there are less mobs, and less (if any) sockpuppets. So, as an INDIVIDUAL EDITOR (not a faceless link in the chain of the collective "consensus") I can freely make the contributions I want exactly how I can on Wikipedia but without having to deal with the idiots I do here. The fact that it'd be more enjoyable is probably the most important thing, aside from speculations on whether Citizendium or the Wikipedia model is superior.
Also, somebody put a "Rejected proposal" tag on the page Wikipedia:No credential policy. Can't have policies be clear and informative, now, can we? Also, WP:IAR is ignored. Check out this silliness. [15]

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaaaand more nonsense.

wutz wrong with using onion pieces in articles onm politiks? Larry Sanger is 100% right. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally! I actually accomplished something important on Wikipedia (not just adding to obscure articles and minor copyedits)!

Criticism of Wikipedia unlocked.

No revert, no rudeness from anyone -- succeeeeeeeeeess!

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That was actually pretty darn perfect. Now to keep it up. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It didn't work because of how I did it. It worked because miraculously Anonymous Dissident got to it first. There are a number of admins watching that page which would've rejected it. I looked over Anonymous Dissident's userpage and he's "one of the good guys", so I made him a barnstar.

See my barnstar proposal: Barnstar of REVOLUTION! ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I'm declaring you my personal WikiHero. —Ashley Y 09:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted as well. Loved that idea to change WP:IAR every day. Cheers! Tparameter (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Two proposal ideas

Your opinion, please:

  1. Integrating WP:Categories for discussion with WP:RFC (see here)
  2. Clarifying the difference between a reliable blog and an unreliable blog (see here).

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the image on WP:CONSENSUS was missing something. You apparently made the original. I filled in the gap:

In practice, there probably should be at least 3 or 4 "Think Harder" boxes, but I didn't want to be redundant. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, yes, another thing occurred to me: A number of steps are missing from there.

Including:

  • RFC
  • ArbCom
  • Apply for adminship (possibly?)

Still, though, I'm sure you get the point. WP:CONSENSUS cannot be modeled like that while totally ignoring WP:IAR because that implies a false compromise. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You're suggesting integrating the wiki:FeynmanAlgorithm into the process? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Zenwhat/Zen guide is back up. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I finally got my account approved on Citizendium (I had some trouble with BeenVerified take a look. It's not as great as I expected. Their article on Zen is horrible. They don't even have an article on Gautama Buddha yet. The help pages are far too technical for a general audience and aren't fully fleshed out. By that I mean that a lot of pipes are missing. Even basic pipes like "CZ:Help" (the equivalent of WP:Help) aren't there. I signed up for their mailing list and posted a message to notify them about this, and I received an email back telling me that I can't even post a message to the mailing list without moderator approval. It really seems like the exact opposite of Wikipedia, where I have to fill out a form, confirm I filled out the form by e-mail, then have a moderator approve that confirmation -- just to take a piss!

I guess the point is: Citizendium should be more like Wikipedia and Wikipedia should be more like Citizendium. Both of them are plagued by bureaucracy. In the case of citizendium, it is "artificial" bureaucracy stemming from elitism, in the case of Wikipedia, it is "natural" bureaucracy stemming from anti-elitism. For a similar idea of where I got this from, see A Theory of Justice by John Rawls, where he equates authoritarian government with the natural aristocracy of radical laissez-faire. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Learning through osmosis? That reminds me of an old memory.

I was in 10th grade biology class. There's a poster on the wall of Garfield with his head on his book, on his desk. A caption reads, "I'm not sleeping. I'm learning through osmosis."

And yes, it is Garfield's fault and it is their fault. In Zen, they teach through osmosis. When you get something wrong, the teacher hits you with a stick. I guess that's basically why Zen masters are considered wise and Feynman was ridiculed. He didn't carry a stick. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucracy or Adhocracy?

Something got lost along the way, I think. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

When pages get very large, browsers slow down. When you want to edit a new section without edit conflicts, the trick is to first create the section, then save page, then edit just that section. By helpfully removing that header, you caused the very edit conflict I was trying to avoid, and slowed down my browser considerably when I tried to finally save my edits (which I was also trying to avoid). If there had been a high volume discussion, I would have had to start over. :-P
So in future, when you see people do that, now you know why. Even so, I do appreciate the sentiment and willingness to help. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that makes a lot of sense. I'll remember that. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The empiricist's fallacy.

I noticed this in a political discussion elsewhere and I've seen people invoke this fallacy in policy discussions.

It's a fallacy I named myself: The empiricist's fallacy. It goes as follows:

"There is no empirical evidence for X, therefore it does not exist."

In other words, it's a denial of logical inference. Scientists don't just believe in strict empiricism, but also in logical inference based upon past empirical evidence. For instance, when you're using an electron microscope, you're using logical inference, not empiricism as you claimed in our discussion.

A good example of the empiricist's fallacy would be as follows: "How do you KNOW there are electrons or quantum particles? Have you ever SEEN one? You can't SHOW me electrons or quantum particles, therefore they don't exist."

No, you can't. But you know they exist, because you know how an electron microscope works, you know what the print-outs it generates mean, and from that you can infer that there are electrons.

With quantum particles, it's probably the same way, but with atom smashers or something along those lines.

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You can short-circuit the logic and say that using an electron microscope is empiricism, because you are using it to observe things. And they make pretty pictures, so who am I to care? :-) (see gallaries too) Transmission electron microscopy makes cross section pictures, and a Scanning electron microscope makes "3d" views (actually 2d projections of a 3d image). --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Kim, you can short-circuit logic. But it doesn't make for a convincing argument.

I have a tendency to quickly jump to conclusions, but when I find I am wrong, I admit it.

You are patient and slow to jump to conclusions, but refuse to admit when you are wrong. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Short-circuiting is not a form of fallacy. Once you have shown that a number of logical steps lead to a similar or identical conclusion, then in future you can skip through to that conclusion, and spend your time on new problems instead.
So I think that if you can reliably infer that something exists/has happened, then we can simplify the situation to "I have observed it"; you do not need to show the chain of logic that lead to your conclusion every single time you hold a conversation, else things would rapidly become tiring. :-P
So I am not disagreeing with you at all, (and unless your conclusion was wrong, my simplification can't be wrong in return :-P) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

By "short-circuiting," I assume you mean invoking a pre-established conclusion.

As an analogy:
A->B
B->C
C->D
From this, you can infer, A->D and for conciseness invoke that by itself instead of the whole.

However, in the future, you cannot say, "A->D" based on false premises, even if the conclusion is true. Your argument has to invoke and cannot contradict the reasons for why it's true, based on the above premises. You didn't do this and it wasn't your original argument. (From here on, I'll use EM as short for "electron microscope.") You said that using EMs was a form of direct observation and empiricism. This isn't "short-circuiting," which can be demonstrated by reducing the argument to its constituent parts.

More precisely:

Observing that EMs operate on certain physical principles->That EMs generate meaningful print-outs
That EMs generate meaningful print-outs->That EM printouts describe observations
That EM printouts describe observations->Using EMs leads to the ability to observe smaller things, indirectly.

Short-circuiting would involve saying, "I can use an EM and it shows me stuff," which is true. What you said was, "Using EMs is empirical observation, therefore I use an EM and it shows me stuff" which is false.

It is observation, which is a simplification, but a misleading one, because it is indirect observation that you consider reliable because "hard thinking" led you to that conclusion. And all observation is ultimately indirect observation, since we see the world through the filter of a limited individual human mind, with senses of uncertain reliability. Knowledge is not so simple to be reduced to, "I look, I see stuff so I know it exists," but is more comparable to looking in a shadowy room with a flash-light.

The shadows are the world and the flashlight is your mind that you use to critically examine these shadows. Upon critically examining them, you may find that something you thought you observed in the past -- such as the way Christians "observe" the Christian God -- may in fact not exist at all. More empirical sciences like biology bother more with moving the flashlight around in different spots, while mathematicians and philosophers are concerned more with giving the light greater intensity. In the absence of this "hard thinkinng," the methodology of the scientist is no greater than that of a chimpanzee. It is entirely possible, for instance, that the mathematical and philosophical basis for modern science may be incorrect, even if right now you seem to observe it as correct, in the same way that Christians "observe" God.

You may say, "But they aren't observing things!" So far as they know, they don't know that. Who's to say your shadows are less imaginary than theirs? That's why critical thinking is so important. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you're sort of on the right track. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

An evil idea.

Some folks don't seem to understand this image and why the definition of "success" in WP:NOTFAIL is erroneous: Image:Wikipedia_absolute_accuracy.png

So, I had an "evil idea."

I animate it. I take the same analogy, but create an animated GIF. Some people have rebutted by argument by saying, "But the absolute quantity of FA articles is growing!" So, unstead of just a static analogy, I use a dynamic one. Using various pictures of garbage, I draw an animation which shows the encyclopedia book "growing" but the garbage is growing faster, so the book is quickly buried. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the statistical basis, did you say, again? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia's statistics are unreliable, it's true. But that, in and of itself, is a sign of failure. We've been through this.

I can't really say for certain how bad Wikipedia is doing based on solid empirical evidence, it's true. But the minimal amount of unreliable empirical evidence so far is still good enough for me to have fun wildly speculating! ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

All entries in wikipedia logs are dated, so if you get the latest version of the database, you can (with some caveats) reconstruct any earlier version, and get accurate trends. --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My absence

Kim, I apprecite your offer to talk by phone etc. I thought about giving a call, but am not really sure what we'd talk about at this point. I took some time off from WP to gain perspective. I came here to do some rearch and saw that I had a message. Otherwise I have been busy elsewhere. I think that I made my points at several places and espressed my concerns. I'm less concerned about what happens as I am about seeing broad participation in the process, especially by active editors. WP needs people working behind the scenes to keep order in the infrastructure, but I'm concerned that these people need to be in touch with the needs of the writers. Talk to you soon. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Holism vs. Reductionism

Or "Why You Shouldn't Worry about Dog Crap" by Zenwhat

A scientist, specifically a scientist who believes strongly in empiricism and reductionism, was walking along around outside one day. Splat. He looked down, to see a familiar brown goo stuck to the bottom of his shoe.

"Damn it," he said to himself, "Something must be done about this."

Like any good scientist, though, he did not accept his own subjective experiences as meaningful until they were rigorously studied. So, he began with the question, "What is dog crap? What are its constituent parts? And if I observe dog crap, what do I see?"

So, he collected samples. He also set up cameras in various places where people generally take their dogs and he observed the following:

  • People frequently let their dogs crap everywhere
  • Dog crap is toxic, contains ecolai, and is very bad for public health
  • Many people are particularly annoyed by it
  • Those who refuse to pick up dog crap are just generally lazy

Based on these, this scientist went to the local government and, upon his advice, they passed a law, "All people must pick up their own dog's crap or else face a fine or jail-time."

On another day, Zenwhat was walking along and contemplating. He saw his dog take a crap, noted that he never picks it up, and thought about it. He reached an insight, though it was based, not on reductionism or empiricism, but holism and hard thinking:

  • Dog food contains an abundant amount of nutrients
  • Therefore, dog crap contains an abundant amount of nutrients
  • Without dog crap, the grass will have no nutrients
  • Without nutrients, the grass must be fertilized or die
    • If the grass is to be fertilized, somebody (usually the local government or homeowners association) must pay for it.
    • If the grass is not fertilized, the grass will turn yellow and brown, and be sparse (indeed, the grass usually looks like this). This ugly grass will lower property values.

Pick up dog crap, pass laws requiring people to do the same and then pay for fertilizer later.
Let the dog crap, let it fertilize the earth, and next time watch where you step.
Those who are so stupid so as to touch dog crap and carry ecolai in their homes without washing their hands or feet will grow sick.
Those who are wise enough to keep themselves clean face no danger from dog crap.

People protect the earth by moving their garbage to landfills,
Thus landfills are the most fertile of farmland yet remain unused!

Create a compost heap in your own backyard.
If you cannot,
What use is there worrying,
About creating a compost heap for the world?

Practice not-doing,
and everything will fall into place.

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Another useless essay. User:Zenwhat/The diamond essay

I have plans for two more: The first, modeled after the Tao Te Ching, the second modeled after the Dhammapada. After I finish this, I plan to compile all of my dharma-related essays into one set, "Wikidharma."

Life is
A content dispute
Do not fix it
Through edits
Mediation
Or arbitration.

Ignore the rules
Blank your mind
And Wikipedia
Edits itself

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Contact by Your Request

You asked me to email you, so I have. You may email me at any time; just click the Chinese character in my sig. For that matter, you may AIM me at xiongchangnian. I'm never found on IRC anymore; it's just mindless chatter. — Xiong熊talk* 05:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You asked me to email you; I did. I posted a polite note here, too, and generously extended my AIM handle. You've not only ignored me, you've dropped a flake on me, with the insulting suggestion (so he says) that we'd "get along".

Kim, you and I went around the barn once. I'd have been happier if I'd never heard from you again but I did. I granted you the courtesy of reply and you've abused it. If you have something to say, say it. Otherwise, why don't you just leave it? — Xiong熊talk* 06:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. TheEggManCometh (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with mainstream Buddhism.

I've told you before how Buddhism is largely "just another religion." To get an idea of what's wrong with mainstream Buddhism, read this short piece by the Theravada monk, Bhikku Pesala:

The Way Down to Hell is Easy

Some passages that stand out:

Some individuals will definitely be reborn in hell after death, and there is nothing they can do to avoid it. Whatever good deeds they do can give their results in the present life, or at some time in the future, but in the next existence, their heavy evil kamma has to give its result. These heavy evil kammas are:

1. Killing one’s own mother.
2. Killing one’s own father.
3. Killing an Arahant.
4. Drawing blood from an Omniscient Buddha.
5. Causing a schism in the Sangha.

In countries where euthanasia is legal, children are in grave danger of killing their own parents.

Telling jokes and useless stories can also lead to hell, because it encourages defilements to flourish.

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review

I was taking a look at Wikipedia Review. I tried to join their forum.

I don't know who I hate more. Wikipedia or Wikipedia Review.

Wikipedia -- for being irrational and dishonest about its own failure.

Wikipedia Review -- for being overly bitter, immature, and downright conspiratorial in much of its criticism.

  • Yin: Wikipedia Review, deletionism, paranoia
  • Yang: Wikipedia, inclusionism, naivety

And things are totally out-of-balance. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Putting redirects over page history

You said at WT:CSD, "Some people don't use redirects right, or put redirects over page history."

Is it wrong to put redirects over page history? I've wondered about that. The instructions at Help:Merging and moving pages seem to suggest that that's the normal (or only?) way of merging pages. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Global Consensus?

At Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:Thenetcentinell, User:Cheeser1 and I got into a pretty heated argument so I'm stepping back, but in the discussion, Cheeser1 said at 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC) inter alia:

I will also point out that, as you're well aware, this is not a vote or a place to form some local consensus. It's a discussion about how we interpret relevant policies (for AfDs, usually WP:N, but here we're talking about WP:USER), which represent a global consensus on the relevant issue(s).

(underlining added)

I understand that WP:CON says: Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies. But, I think about trying to apply this to article editing and the discussions we've had a WP:BRD particularly relating to WP:SILENCE (which is incorporated into the lead of WP:CON as well), and it seems to be a pretty lame argument at best: "Well, you don't agree with me and you are correctly certain that nobody else here will either but what we're really talking about is whether all of Wikipedia as documented in their policies, would agree with me - so the fact that you and everyone else here don't agree is irrelevant". I know this may make some feel good, but at an XfD where everyone is presumably there because he or she is interested in policy to begin with, does such an argument make sense - and of course WP:IAR is policy too (and arguably higher up the food chain than WP:CON - WP:CON is not part of the Trifecta). I could care less about the specific case referenced above, but I did think this brought up an interesting question of Wikiphilosophy that you were more than a little likely to have some thoughts on.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Hi, I noticed your name on the "buddy system" list on the Mediation Cabal suggestions page, and I noticed that you like, and I quote, "really tricksy cases." Those are exactly the kinds of cases I'd be interested in being a part of, mediation-wise. I was wondering if you could help me start off, maybe get in touch with me and give me some pointers? Much obliged, Dr. Extreme (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

neutrality

Undue weight, it makes sense. But how can we achieve consensus on the exact weight a particular view should be given, and especially: the inclusion of facts; when a majority of editors is pushing view A so hard, that they think view A is equal to neutrality, and view B is equal to violating the guidelines?

In other words: do you know any examples of succesful consensus in tough debates? Or is there just a majority victory and a perennial debate?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Time Off

Kim, I took some time off from WP. I'm back to a certain extent, but may not be immediately responsive here, but we can chat again by email. I'd like to understand more about your concerns and share mine etc. I hope that all is well with you. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching Re-confirmation

Hello, previously you expressed interest in participating in the Wikipedia:Admin coaching project. We are currently conducting a reconfirmation drive to give coaches the opportunity to update their information and capacity to participate in the project. Please visit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to update your status. Also, please remember to update your capacity (5th table variable) in the form of a fraction (eg. 2/3 means you are currently coaching 2 students, and could accept 1 more student). Thank you. MBisanz talk 09:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Not retired.

Yeah, I've decided to edit Wikipedia.

But I don't expect to accomplish anything.

See User:Zenwhat/Stay sane.

Also, I'd still like that webspace if you still have it. Not for ranting about Wikipedia, mind you, just for a variety of stuff. For essays on Wikipedia policy (which I think would be difficult to put here, for obvious reasons), for some remarks about Buddhism, for my fictional book about Wikipedia (still working on that), and recently I had an idea to write a book on philosophy on what it means to be human.

It occurred to me that Vulcans are a good role model for ideal human behavior and proper dharma practice. A Theravada monk I spoke with remarked:

I have long thought that Mr. Spock is the best popular icon we have for the Abhidhammic arahant: a person without a self, who, prompted by functional consciousnesses (kriya-citta), responds rationally and disinterestedly, and yet at the same time, virtuously and (when appropriate) compassionately, to all situations.

This inspired me to realize more clearly what it means to be human: Across many cultures, there is the idea of the "superior man." There are some differences between the different conceptions, but also striking similarities.

Specifically, I'm talking about:

With a synthesis of these ideas, it seems to be that what separates humans above animals is rational and disenchanted altruism, which can be achieved through meditation, the same as Vulcans themselves achieved this in Star Trek.

The superstitious, religious elements, are nonsense, though, of course, and likely overlaid upon the histories of "great men," after the fact. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Joy. It seems to have actually worked. Someone finally made the change. They finally accomplished getting Template:User transwiki'd.

This:

*{{User|Jimbo Wales|en}} - English Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|fr}} - French Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|ja}} - Japanese Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|nl}} - Dutch Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|es}} - Spanish Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|sv}} - Swedish Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|pt}} - Portugese Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|it}} - Italian Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|pl}} - Polish Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|de}} - German Wikipedia

Generates this:

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Two trolls.

Two trolls I dealt with in the past were apparently indef-blocked not too long ago. I didn't notice, though, because I don't wiki-stalk people I have issues with.

The two people in question:

  • UnclePaco: Pushing some kind of bizarre Caribbean racism or ethnic nationalism
  • User:Sarsaparilla: Pushing Libertarian politics, regularly engaging in particularly contentious editing. He mentions your name in this edit, a typo but a pretty funny one. [16]

My initial complaints about these people were totally ignored. For instance, when Sarsaparilla offered to sell his account in WP:VPM, I complained and people told me, "Oh no, he's probably just joking," and in both cases I was told, "Single-purpose accounts aren't necessarily against the rules!"

It's only been after considerable effort that they've been outed and blocked, and now we have to review their contributions very, very carefully to see all the damage that has been done.

In the case of Sarsaparilla, he was very good at generating POV content forks with long lists of sources which, at this point, are certainly questionable. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)