User talk:Taraborn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Taraborn! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I think its very important for you to browse through some of the links below so as to become familiar with how Wikipedia works. If you need any help you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and another Wikipedian will show up shortly. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Wikisigbutton.png or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you're already loving Wikipedia and plan on becoming a Wikipedian you might consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor, just paste {{Adoptme}} into your userpage and you will gladly be adopted! You might also consider joining a WikiProject so as to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Just H 20:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Contents

[edit] Request for adoption

I see that were requesting adoption. Would you like me to adopt you? If you want to find out more about me, see my user page. You may also want to look at my description on the adopters' page. If you want me to adopt you, click the "edit" button to the right of the section heading of this message, and type below that you want me to adopt you. Please end your message with 4 tildes, which will sign your username and the time you replied.. (~~~~)--TeckWizTalkContribs@ 00:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm adopting you! :). I have set up an adoption page, for you to ask about anything, here. --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 12:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I have moved your question from my talk page to your adoption page. Please ask all questions there. That's where I will give replies. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to answer as I must eat dinner and then do loads of homework. I will probably respond tomorrow morning. --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 23:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] it's the only encyclopedia that grows faster than you can read :D

Excellent observation! I naively thought that I could at least skim through most of what was here but then soon came to realize what 1000 was, let alone 10,000 or 100,000 or, 1,000,000 or even several of those. We have a lot of jumping-off articles - I hope that you continue to enjoy them as much as do I. --hydnjo talk 00:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My photos

Thanks mate,

My camera is a Canon Powershot A520. It is just a point-and-shoot, but it is a Canon, which are superb quality. You just have to learn how to manipulate it by using the manual settings. --liquidGhoul 14:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!


Happy Birthday Taraborn! | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here

I wish you a Happy Birthday! I hope you have a magnificent day! You are a year older now, enjoy it! AndonicO Talk · Sign Here
.


You're welcome. I think I won't mention the second part of your message though. ;-) | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 18:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Me and Wikipedia

Hello, Taraborn. Thanks for your comments. Let me cover them in some sort of order. Apologies for the length.

I don't want to sound rude

Don't worry, no offense taken!

but your criticism of Wikipedia as a "philosophy"

Now, where did I suggest that? The theory is fine, it's the practice that I consider flawed. Not critically, but flawed nonetheless. After all, what isn't? Some systems have more flaws than others, or different degrees of severity. Sure I could have argued against the principles of the place, but I could do that with anything.

"Bad" edits (which includes vandalism) are countered very fast due to the huge side of the Wikipedia community and Wikipedia bots.

I never suggested they weren't. I have a watchlist and I do my own share of the reverts. But that doesn't change the fact that people, with the best intentions in the world, add information that is unsourced, misleading or simply erroneous. Usually they're seen to very quickly. But sometimes they're convincing enough not to be caught for ages, never given the appropriate {{fact}}, tag, or cause a large discussion among the "regular" editors of a page as to whether something is correct because it can't be verified (or falsified) elsewhere. But as I said, they generally lead to an improvement in the article, either by verification from an alternative source, or simply by the general attention the edit brought to the article.
But for what it's worth, I wrote that bit several times, and changed it again after I put it up, but was still never happy with how it sounded. You've just shown why. :(

Ultimately, Wikipedia will never be 100% reliable., nothing is 100% reliable, and there is no such thing as a reliable source of information.

Again, did I ever say there was...

It is not something to trust inherently as an authoritative source, funny one, so I see you trust particular sources due to their reputation, when someone should only trust scientific proofs (isn't that a form of argumentum ad hominem fallacy?).

...And did I ever say I did? Some sources are more reliable than others, but everything is relative. Wikipedia is, on the whole, very good. That isn't to say there aren't certain other sources I won't, typically, trust more. Equally, it isn't to say that there aren't times I won't trust Wikipedia over another established source.
But yes, ultimately I will take certain sources as "authoritative" (which as I'm sure you know is not the same as "100% reliable"), in the sense that I'll accept that as the last word (for the moment). Eventually we all have to do that if we're going to believe something, and - provided an article checks out and the references look as reliable as they can to a layman - I'll accept Wikipedia by proxy. Indeed, if the article comes across as informed I may well trust it, at least as much as anything else, without them. Although perhaps these "authoritative" sources aren't the ones you're thinking I mean...

Wikipedia references its statements, which is the best thing an information database can do. Most encyclopedias don't, you accept their statements as the truth... Encarta says "this is this way" when Wikipedia says "John Doe says this is this way".

Well said. And those are the occasions I'll trust Wikipedia over something else. Although, just so you know, and at least in my own field, it's precisely those references I'll go to over Wikipedia, not another encyclopedia (I don't even have access to any other encyclopedias); I've added several such sources here myself. This place is only as good as the sources it cites, and I sometimes know when a "reputable" source isn't worth the paper it's printed on. And sometimes the wrong sources are cited with the best of intentions; I've changed a few of those, too. Scientific journals are no less infallible than the Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta.
But if it's not something I know about (which, let's be honest, is nearly everything!) I'll trust Wiki if the article comes across well, and (IMO) rightly so. You take any source, be it here, another encyclopedia, a journal, whatever, you have to take it on faith at some level. Wiki is no different. I have to believe those editors have done a good job, just as they have to believe I have. But I've been using this place much longer than I've been contributing, and I know how to look for a good article and information that's likely to be correct. Too many people will read anything, naively take it as true, then get a bad impression of the place if it turns out to be incorrect. That's what gives Wikipedia an unfairly poor reputation in some circles, not vandalism. That's what we're all doing our best to improve. That's why (barring grammar etc.) I only work on articles I can provide sources for. I do my share of upholding Wikipedia as a reliable source in discussion with friends and acquantainces (online and off), and its poor reputation is unfounded. My little piece was intended to address that reputation, not the actual truth.

I thank you for your comments. Perhaps much of what I wrote was badly put across. You've given me plenty to think about, so I expect I'll rewrite that section to come across much less foolhardy. Spiral Wave 00:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there was no need to apologise! The fact that you felt so strongly about it shows what a bad job I did of getting my point across. It never even occurred to me someone might think I was talking about other encyclopedias or similar sources, so I'm grateful.
Let's see then... "...particularly vulnerable to untrue but convincing, hard to refute and most times even being good faithed edits". Well, yes I suppose that would be a good way of putting it. Wiki's strength is that it's dynamic; it can be kept up to date, it's constantly evolving, and you can find all sorts of nuggets of information you might never find elsewhere, at least by yourself. But those same features leave it open to misplaced but well-meaning edits, or deliberately wrong but questionable or un(dis)proveable ones (I just made that word up, bet you didn't notice). I don't think that's avoidable, all we can do is keep on checking and improving.
The thing is, Wikipedia is often the place people come to check facts and figures, or arcane bits of urban legend. Those are the bits you can't typically get from other "conventional" (for want of a better word) places, so they're one of Wiki's greatest strengths. And those are often the bits that are easiest to get wrong, accidentally or deliberately, or else they simply date quickly; so they're one of its greatest weaknesses as well. I know for myself I come here often to check certain figures, but I'm always wary of them without checking the source and its date. So people don't trust them (sometimes correctly), Wiki gets mocked, becomes a target for further hasty or vandalous edits, and the process repeats. I don't know how you can solve that, beyond having good teams of editors working together to improve things. I don't think there are any easy answers, other than "just keep at it." A bit like real life, really. Just like it, in fact. If everthing else stands up to scrutiny too, then those more... ephemeral... pieces of information are more likely to be trusted. Which is good, because they're usually sourced and right. I'd say most regular contributors would have to be pretty confident of something like that before they added it, because they know how it'll get treated.
As for improving the practice, that's the same I think; just keep at it. Sometimes "flawed" is the best you can do. There were all sorts of discussions in the news last year of Jimbo considering whether pages need to be locked against unregistered users, and there are so many different levels of protection and users... it's messy, and I don't pretend to know enough to know what to do. It might be nice if the responses for semi-protection were a bit more rapid or easier to come by, or there were more people around who could do that sort of thing - revert wars against clear vandals sometimes go on needlessly long - but beyond that I don't know. You can't stop incorrect good faith edits, it's daft to try or even to want to.
Hmm... I hope that answers your questions? It's a bit out of my depth to be honest, I know what I can do, and this sort of philosophical or social analysis isn't part of it! But I think replying to you has forced me to kind of gather my thoughts a bit, so it's helped me. Thank you! Spiral Wave 00:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I have replied to you on my talk page. This message is in case you don't have my talk page on your watchlist, or you are an IP who doesn't have a watchlist. --TeckWizParlateContribs@

[edit] "Idiots"

Please don't call other Wikipedians "idiots", as you did here; it violates WP:CIV and WP:NPA.

Atlant 12:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joost

I've got invites, and feel generous. feel free to reply on my talk and we can work it out.gorffy 19:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

MSN works, you can contact me at my Wikipedia User Name at hotmail dot com gorffy 00:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About God...

About your statement how "God doesn't exist," I totally agree with you. Until you give me the scientific facts that proves the contrary. --Canadia 02:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Learning

Hello, and thanks for asking me! Well, it just depends, do you want to learn what cars are about in general, or do you want to learn about stuff like the history of certain brands or models? I have recommendations for both. Karrmann 16:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

That was a really nice message for you to leave. But, you know, we are all important on here, and there's nothing I do that others can't do. You should try it! Start looking on Wikipedia for notable people in your area and ask to do photos and interviews. --David Shankbone 19:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Comments like the one you left at User_talk:Jinxmchue#Your_user_page are most counterproductive, and at best, only serve to further such-minded people of their delusions of self-righteous vilification.--ZayZayEM 23:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? It was just informative. --Taraborn 12:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Zay has a personal grudge against me. Please just ignore his personal attacks. Jinxmchue 16:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
He didn't use any personal attacks, and I agree with him you are worthless. --Taraborn 21:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Great, apparently the moron has retired :) "My faith in God is what is important in my life", absolutely worthless... --Taraborn 21:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balkan languages

You are very welcome, and thank you for that kind acknowledgement. You just hit on a subject that fascinates me! SaundersW (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

For a history of the Balkans, I like Misha Glenny's "The Balkans". (see [1] ) He is a former BBC journalist who spent a long time in the region, and he is both knowledgeable and a good communicator. There's an online resource: [2] which is a handbook of Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian in PDF, that I keep returning to. It's rather dense, but it has just about everything you'd want to know about BCS in it! Other stuff I have picked up in conversation and as I am trying to learn it. All the best! SaundersW (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: arylsulfatase A

My older sister died of it shortly after I was born, so naturally I was tested. I also have the genes for metachromatic leukodystrophy, but alack! no symptoms. --ffroth 20:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to avoid edit conflicts

Hey, we just edit conflicted on Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science for no reason at all. Did you edit the last section on the page in order to add a new section? That's the only thing I could think of that would cause this. If you use the "+" at the top of the page instead, you'll cause (and experience) fewer conflicts. Friday (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course I use the "+"... I'm not a beginner. --Taraborn (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that's weird. Maybe someone has broken the software again. I just got yet another inexplicable conflict. Friday (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hope it gets fixed soon. It's working fine for me, though. --Taraborn (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OP

The probability that a questioner on the RD knows that s/he is an OP must be vanishingly small. After being on the RD for the last 3 years or so, I still cannot remember what OP stands for ... original poster? ... so, err, if you want the message to get through, you'd be advised to drop the obscure jargon. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've thought of that (that the questioner doesn't know the meaning of such acronym), but, in that case, I assume he would type those two letters in the search textbox and click in Go and, in the process, he would learn something new. What, admittedly, shocked me is that a veteran RD user like you ignores (or is uncertain of) the meaning of an acronym we have used countless times when trying to address the original poster of a question. --Taraborn (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
You must be easily shocked then. How do you make it through the day? My view: your logic is barking mad. 1. The OP, not knowing that s/he is the OP, would be little likely to bother looking up OP. 2. As for me, I know enough to know that it is a damn fool acronym for the person who asked the question, so do not need to look it up. Always pleasant talking to you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
First, please, calm down. Nobody has insulted your intelligence. Well, now my question is: Why can you safely assume that the OP is a _much_ stupider person than you? Perhaps he's able to guess its meaning too, don't you think? Or maybe not. Who cares? If he acts stupid, then it's solely his own fault, not mine. --Taraborn (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pissy comments on the RD

I've removed a comment of yours from the RD - ::Thanks for stating the obvious. --Taraborn (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC) for two reasons: 1. The reply you flamed seemed to me to be a helpful response to the question. I see no particular fault with it; certainly nothing that warrants a flame. 2. It is not the wikipedia way to flame people like this.

I'd like to suggest to you that you take some time out to think about whether you are using the RD appropriately. I noted your comment "To the OP: You are not using the RD adequately. If you want to talk to SandersW personally, use his/her talk page". Quite apart from the OP element, there is the irony that in maing this comment you were being just as inappropriate as the OP ... talking to a single user through the RD. Your second "stating the obvious" comment is simply gratuitous and offensive.

I note that you seem to me not to take criticism well. let me tell you that I'd be as happy tnot to hear back from you on this, but merely hope that you'll sit back to take the time to think about the appropriateness of what you are doing. If you cannot contain your desire to comment, I'd further suggest that you avoid the RDs and perhaps find a nice forum somewhere to play on. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem, we can talk, but, please, don't carry out these kind of actions. They are considered, at the very least, impolite and, certainly, aren't very intelligent. I really do not understand why you are so nervous and mad at me and why you don't want me to reply back, are you afraid of my argumentative skills or something? I really doubt that guesswork does any good to the Reference Desk, much on the contrary, they serve to make the questioner feel insulted and poison the atmosphere there. When I simply don't have a clue about something, I just shut up and let somebody who actually knows more than me answer. Sounds logical, isn't it? Perhaps telling them to stop doing so will improve our experience at the RD, don't you think? Now, please, be a little bit more polite and calm down, okay? --Taraborn (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The reason I do not want to hear back from you is that I have better things to do than listen to your denial. Here's the bottom line: there is no argument on god's earth for the comment you left on the RD. It was in bad faith, and we do not do that sort of thing. That is why I asked you to go and think about it - something you signally have failed to do. now go away and do it now; don't copme whinging back to me that there was not a problem with a comment that was obviously problematical. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it wasn't in bad faith. Why would I want to annoy people gratuitously? I just wanted everyone to know that guesswork = bad by chastising a guessworker, not only because it's useless but because it's bad for the community as a whole. Now, and again, calm down. Don't reply that fast and think before you reply if you are intending to do so, your nervousness makes you make way too many typos. --Taraborn (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
If you have a problem with a poster on the RD. talk to them on their page. Do not comment on their posts in the RD. I recognise that you have a very high opinion of your own wit, but it doesn't wash with me. My view is that you are showing very poor judgement right now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought that it wouldn't hurt anybody's feelings if I warned potential guessworkers that their behaviour is undesirable and counterproductive, but I guess I was wrong. Honestly, I still cannot fully comprehend your reaction. --Taraborn (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Bull. You didn't warn anybody about guesswork, you flamed someone who offered a reasonable answer to an admittedly difficult question. Personally, I think their answer was technically incorrect since Tai chi chih is the "non-martial art" version of Tai chi chuan, but that deserves a correction, not an attack. And for your own sake, please don't descend into criticizing a person's grammar when it's become clear you're in the wrong; it's pathetic. Failing that, at least make sure you warn against "too many" typos, not "too much"; typo is not a mass noun. Tagishsimon has said exactly what I came here to say. Matt Deres (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Woops. True, I don't know how could that had happened, it's fixed now. Thanks. --Taraborn (talk) 10:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Let's move on. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Languages

I honestly don't know how many languages I know to some degree, but I can assure you that I am fluent in only a few, and there are only a few more in which I can read a newspaper without a dictionary. What I'm good at is grasping, specifically, grammar. I've studied, as far as I can recount now, about ten foreign languages under instruction by a teacher, using grammar books, exercises and such. Some I've studied for many years, a few for only a couple of months. They span quite a few language superfamilies, and for most I've tried to keep up my knowledge. Then there is what I pick up while travelling, which I have to do a lot for my work. During my travels I always try to learn a bit of the local languages, carrying a pocket dictionary for deciphering signs, newspaper headlines, and menu entries, while saying things like hello and may your life path be replete with blessings (as appropriate) in the local vernacular. And in some cases I've absorbed enough that way to understand (most of) newspaper articles and to carry on a conversation of sorts.  --Lambiam 07:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions on users at the reference desk

Hello, Taraborn. I honestly think you should remove the thread on Phaedriel. I find it inappropriate to speculate about another user at the reference desk, especially one who hasn't edited in quite a while, and it might invite all sorts of comments we really don't need. In fact, it already has. I never had any direct encounters with Phaedriel, but from I what I gather she is an unusually friendly, emphatic, and diplomatic administrator, who promoted, spread (and consequently also received) what is sometimes called WikiLove. See also Wikipedia:Eguor admins. If you're that fascinated, you can go through her contributions. Now, please remove the thread, before this escalates once again. Thank you. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do it immediately. Sorry for all inconvenience. --Taraborn (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
No probs, no inconveniences, and thank you so much. :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 18:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to you for your reply :) --Taraborn (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Hi buddy

It’s always nice to meet fellow knowledge seekers on Wikipedia! I apologize for the lengthy delay in my response; I have not been active on Wikipedia for quite some time. Even now, I’ve been popping in more to say hello than to do any serious editing. I’d be happy, though, to discuss tips and whatnot with you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)