User talk:Ripe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Digital rights management 2 Windows Vista, 3 when reporting vandals at WP:AIV 4 DAT vs CD 5 Quantum Mind 6 Sarbanes-Oxley Act 7 Sicko Cut Scenes 8 Honorifics and titles 9 MOS Sir/Dame 10 Wikicookie 11 Partial Construction.

[edit] Digital rights management

The couple words you changed in the lead might be reasonable. But almost all the other changes you made throughout the article removed important concepts. User:WAS 4.250 was certainly correct to revert the large set of changes you made. On the lead issue narrowly, I'm of mixed feelings. "Policies controlling access" is pretty much accurate, but it's also sort of thick jargon that readers new to the topic will not know. "Limitations" is a bit less precise, but also more accessible to readers. I'm not going to revert your phrase, at least not right away, but I can see editors being suspicous given that your first jump into the page (and almost into WP in general) was a bunch of mostly bad changes. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windows Vista,

Sound played through a user's speakers, such as audio embedded on a webpage, and detected by the microphone can be registered by Vista's speech recognition as application or shell commands like deleting documents.^[1]

I've moved this to a new section "Vulnerabilities". Please look into it to see whether it's ok. BTW, I'm a new user to wikipedia... Mugunth 05:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. I was wondering why there wasn't a vuln section. Ripe 13:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Vuln section was removed by someone else, so I returned the note to the speech recog. section Ripe 14:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed a lot of your edits to Windows Vista are being reverted. I appriciate your good-faith attempts to improve the article, but obviously other editors (including myself) do not agree. Might I suggest you discuss on the talk page what changes you want to make. Paul Cyr 16:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. :) But even when issues have been sorted out (like the WMP UI issue), talk page entries should not be deleted. Older entries are kept so that someone who wants to track the development of the article can find out what were the issues in the past. I reverted your deletion this time. In the future, please do not delete them. :) Regards, and cya around. :) --soum (0_o) 03:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] when reporting vandals at WP:AIV

Please use the report formats given in the examples here. Those formats allow bots to trim the list automatically when someone is blocked. Anyway, thanks for the report. I blocked that one indefinitely. ··coelacan 04:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DAT vs CD

Your comment at DRM re DAT vs CD is inaccurate. Actually, Philips developed DAT around the same time as the LaserDisc. CDs came along rather later. And in fact there was considerable conflict over DAT as the quality of copies would have been much higher than formerly (with analog media) and that worried the content holders. The original comment, even if inadequately sourced, is still accurate. ww 03:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I was working off the Digital_Audio_Tape article that says that DAT is a signal recording and playback medium developed by Sony in the mid 1980s. As a proof-of-concept technology it may have developed earlier but it seems like it wasn't a market ready/commercially viable technology until CDs were present. The DAT article says nothing about Philips - you might want to take it up with them. Ripe 19:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum Mind

Ey Oh,

I'm puzzled that you edited the intro to Quantum Mind to say:

"Supporters of the quantum mind hypothesis have not submitted any evidence to support its claims for peer review..."

Penrose has written three books on or around the subject, one of which contained chapters devoted to replies to criticism of his earlier work. Stapp has published a number of papers plus an e-book, MU.PDF. Hammerof has also published a variety of papers and set up the Q Mind conferences. All have engaged in correspondence with critics, and are cited by reliable authors (e.g. Shimony quotes Stapp on Stanford's Plato encylopedia of philosophy). While there are a fair few nay-sayers, their work has nevertheless been subject to peer review. Direct evidence is hard to come by, though this is even more of a difficulty for'classical' theories of mind. To his credit, Hammerof has listed several predictions for his hypothesis with the intention that it can be tested. Davy p 20:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As a copyedit I changed the preexisting text "The quantum mind thesis does not as yet have any evidence to confirm its validity, but some role of quantum processes in consciousness has not been completely ruled out. Sufficient understanding of the operation of the brain could prove the proposition false." to "Supporters of the quantum mind hypothesis have not submitted any evidence to support its claims for peer review, but the hypothesis has also not yet been falsified." because I like the words better. If the preexisting text was correct then so is mine, but feel free to edit if you have citations for journal articles. Book chapters aren't peer reviewed, and conference papers are not as stringent, particularly by the conference organizer or at a conference that presupposes the phenomenon. Ripe 21:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sarbanes-Oxley Act

Why did you revert my edit? What is the purpose of an incomplete list of largely non-notable law review articles? THF 23:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Objections on the talk page by 74.86., binarygirl, soxman, bluetie. If it's incomplete it should be completed. if they're "largely" nn they should be selectively pruned not blanked. Ripe 23:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that 74.86 and SOXman are the same person, none of those comments are about law review articles. Here's the link for SSRN if you want to start adding 480 of the law review articles not mentioned. THF 23:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sicko Cut Scenes

I reverted your edit to the Cut Scenes. Scenes which were to be in the movie, are "cut scenee". Describing those scenes is not a POV. If Mr. Moore had filmed scenes in Switerland which has private health insurance, and then not used, them, we didn't include that statement it would be a POV. But here, he films in Norway and doesn't use them. I agree that the 2hr limit of a documentary is a side issue and didn't belong. I re-removed that statement. If you have a better way to explain the scenes that were cut I'd be glad to talk about it. I'm not in love with the wording but it does seem to describe what we know to have ended up on the editing room floor. GaryLambda 04:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the cut scenes need to be summarized in one or two (at most) sentences. My edit was "Moore cut footage detailing benefits in the French, UK, and Norwegian health care systems." which I think adequately summarizes the cut scenes. We have nearly as many words in the Wikipedia article on the cut scenes than there is in lone source cited that mentions Sicko. That's why I think it's undue weight. Ripe 14:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

also, "verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point" NPOV. Clearly why the cut scenes are described in such detail with undue weight is because someone is trying to make a point about something. Ripe 14:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that unless we get a more definitive statement from Mr. Moore from some other verifiable source. 207.171.180.101 15:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honorifics and titles

I assume based on your remarks that you have seen my own proposals on the matter. I agree with your points, as far as I read; but you can see from the response you generated that you are not going to win the fight. There is a vocal and relentless group of editors at Wikipedia who insist on these clearly-biased usages, and then vocally and relentlessly insist that they are not biased. In particular, there is a vocal and relentless group of self-debasing British royalists who, when they are not complaining about the oppression they suffer through a supposed US bias at Wikipedia (while all evidence shows that they get their way plenty), are carefully monitoring every page, relevant or not, to ensure that the correct medieval obeisance is paid to every aristocratic or well-connected “knight” or “lord”, no matter how despicable that person’s life is or was. And, it goes without saying, they deny that they are injecting any bias, let alone debasing themselves. I, of course, being sensible, believe that the default, neutral position is that all persons are of equal value, and find it ludicrous that anyone should care that this or that government, let alone this or that unelected beneficiary of preposterous hereditary privilege, should be able to bestow a title that we must then all treat as a part of a person’s name. But you have seen the arguments that these fools are making, yes? The bogus distinctions between honorifics and titles, for instance? Privileging “honors” over “qualifications”? Trust me, they will never give up. Wikipedia just attracts idiots of a certain kind; in this case, people who not only devour every page of Royalty but yearn to write for it themselves. Good luck.
— Ford (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MOS Sir/Dame

I have re-opened the subject of the exception for Sir/Dame at the ‎ Manual of Style. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikicookie

[edit] Partial Construction.

Please, see the user talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom#Partial_Construction for details on the topic. You are removing text which is directly sourced to the peer-reviewed journal. This is vandalism, not proper editing. I understand you to have good intention but, your action is to the detriment of Wikipedia, not to its improvement. William R. Buckley (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect regarding the further need of a zygote for the supply of material (or for that matter, information) from the mother. There are simple cases where this is incorrect. William R. Buckley (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There are many many cases where it is correct so it's a poor analogy at best but I'm not going to debate you on the concepts here. You cite your own journal article in press or not it's unpublished which is unverifiable according to Wikipedia policy. I have journal access at university and it's not published yet so I'm tempted to remove the entire section as unverified OR. If you can give me a citation of an existing published paper that draws analogies between the concepts you can add it back with edits. Ripe (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I gave the secondary citation, as well as a direct quote, on the user talk page of TheRedPenOfDoom. Partial construction is cited in the paper published in the proceedings volume of the conference Automata 2008. The paper in Biological Theory is cited as a reference in the Automata 2008 paper. The Automata 2008 provides exactly the kind of statement given in the text of the Wikipedia article. Your act is nothing short of vandalism, and it is not I who should correct the condition. That some alternative example can be found is no counter to those examples which support the model described. I do not mind the questions, nor the calls for further verification. However, your removal of the correlation between a zygote and a partial constructor, a correlation which is accepted by the editors of the peer-reviewed journal, is simply wrong. You should put it back. William R. Buckley (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. You are engaging in a perfect example of COI editing. When multiple authors suggest you back off on pushing your own research & citations in this manner, that's a hint that you should do so. I suggest you wait a few months for the journal to actually be published & only then resubmit. Accusing others of vandalism isn't the way you should be approaching this. Ripe (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The above publication of the proceedings volume for conference Automata 2008 proves verifiability. Hence, you have committed vandalism. My statement is neither COI nor POV. It is simply a restatement of the content of already published text. William R. Buckley (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Amazon search there are no hits for "zygote" in the Automata 2008 proceedings. Ripe (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The word need not be used for the concept to be discussed. A myopic read of the text is insufficient as a means of knowledge acquisition. Please do a more thorough job of reviewing the text. See the section on Modes of Self-replication, and especially the closing paragraph. Translation to the concept of zygote is not particularly a stretch. William R. Buckley (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You might also read the section Comments, and consider carefully the Challenge there presented. To date, no counter example has been given.

I should also like to add that it is upon the inclusion of discussion which correlates the mechanisms of partial construction and zygotic development that the paper was accepted by Biological Theory. William R. Buckley (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the time delay between offer and now, it would seem that you too have difficulty in finding a counter example to my challenge. William R. Buckley (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at it & I'm probably not going to because your 'challenge' doesn't interest me. What does interest me is getting uncited nonnotable COI vanity content off of WP. Ripe (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Vanity is the reference to oneself, not the reference to new ideas. Your blatant vandalism is fine with me, for others will in short order expand what I wrote, as opposed to the butchery you applied. What you have really done is to show your propensity toward ignorance. This is, unfortunately, an all too common behavior amongst those who prefer their editing to be anonymous, as opposed to those of us who are clearly and personally identified. I believe the most proper term for such behavior, the hiding away of one's identity, is cowardice. William R. Buckley (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Revenge will be yours etc. Ripe (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)