User talk:WAS 4.250/Archive 03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Tokyo Stock Exchange

Please see discussion page for above topic. Revmachine21 02:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dont

Regarding Avian influenza, please stick the the maunal of style guidlines, not your own. Martin 17:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop your style war now, follow the guidlines, see Wikipedia:External links. Martin 17:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who can post about Bird Flu?

I am confused, being new at this. Who can post on Avian Influenza? Are there some restrictions? The external link I have posted has now disappeared on 2 occasions. Now it sems like the whole topic has disappeared. Looks like user WAS 4.250 moved only part of it to an influenza-virus-A topic instead. What is the motivation and idea? Will the topic come back, including my link - or do I have to post another one? Thanks. User:Anernelson

[edit] Avian Influenza

I'm not sure if being "discovered" was beneficial to the natives of the Americas, but I guess thanks. I actually don't know much about H5N1, but I'll lend a hand I feel I have something to contribute. cheers, Nrets 02:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Divisiveness

Very good! You have a real knack for producing relevant policies/guidelines. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! WAS 4.250 18:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Start a discussion if reverting

You reverted my good faith contributions to the DRM article without discussion. my edits removed some POV and removed extraneous information debating the qualities of analog vs. digital media. Please start discussions if you disagree with non-vandalism edits. Ripe 01:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digital rights management

FYI, I wrote the following to User:Ripe:

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 02:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] method and dialogues and whatnot

hi was,

although the dialogue article isn't very big, the "Socratic dialogues" and the "socratic method" are in no way equatable terms (imho, of course). (As i'm sure you are well aware,) the "Socratic dialogues" refer to a set of dialogues written by Plato, xenophon, and a few others in which Socrates is the main character; "Socratic method", on the other hand, refers to a method of inquiry often utilized within the socratic dialogues. On wiki articles, the terms are clearly used in different ways to denote two different things. for instance-

Perhaps his most important contribution to Western thought is his dialectic method of inquiry, known as the Socratic Method or method of elenchos, which he largely applied to the examination of key moral concepts such as the Good and Justice, concepts used constantly without any real definition. It was first described by Plato in the Socratic Dialogues. For this, Socrates is customarily regarded as the father of political philosophy and ethics or moral philosophy, and as a fountainhead of all the main themes in Western philosophy in general.
The Socratic dialogues are a series of dialogues written by Plato and Xenophon in the form of discussions between Socrates and other persons of his time, or as discussions between Socrates' followers over his concepts. Plato's Phaedo is an example of this latter category. While Plato's Apology is a speech (with Socrates as speaker), it is nonetheless generally counted as one of the Socratic dialogues.
Socrates figures in all of these, and they are considered the most faithful representations of the historical Socrates; hence they are also called the Socratic dialogues. Most of them consist of Socrates discussing a subject, often an ethical one (friendship, piety) with a friend or with someone presumed to be an expert on it. Through a series a series of questions he will show that they don't apparently understand it at all. This period also includes several pieces surrounding the trial and execution of Socrates.
The main article for this category is Socratic dialogues.

So considering how the terms are used very differently, I think two seperate articles are warranted. Plato's metaphor of the sun, for instance, doesn't just get a section in the Republic or Plato; also, as above, some Socratic dialogues, like the Apology, don't utilize the method at all, so they don't necessarily go hand in hand. As to size, articles have a way of filling themselves out- eg, Socratic method (history) was relegated to being part of Socrates until i unmerged it last april. It can be a stub.

However, if it does get unmerged, it should probably be to Socratic dialogues rather than Socratic Dialogue . . .

Again, i'm sure you're well aware that the two terms don't denote the same thing, and i see from the edit history that that wasn't your argument for merging them. But given that they don't mean the same thing or necessarily refer to the same things or even the same category of thing, I don't really see the advantage to keeping them together.

If you strongly disagree it won't be the end of the world. but again, i just don't really see the advantage in relegating "socratic dialogues" to a section of "socratic method".

thoughts?

thanks for your time!

--Heah talk 04:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

perhaps we should discuss this on the socratic method talk page? nice sunset pic you've got up, btw. very calming. --Heah talk 04:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good, i'll get to work on that tomorrow. in the meantime i threw on some cats and whatnot. thanks! --Heah talk 05:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Aw gee... I like the star polygon! But, Sparkling prose??
Thanks! Vsmith 02:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: ITN

Yes, I know, and I considered linking it to that article, but I found the H5N1 to be better on giving background information on the bird flu virus, something I imagine many people will find interesting and educational to read. The Global spread of H5N1 reads more like a diary. But that's just me and I see value in including that one, too. Maybe there's a way to include both links by refrasing the ITN sentence? Perhaps include the word "spreads" somewhere and link it to the global spread article? Any sugestion? Shanes 22:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I put out your sugestion with the Global spread of H5N1 article bolded. Shanes 01:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation pages

Regarding your edit [1] please have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages):

  • Unlike a regular article page, don't wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine where they might find the information. For example:

Markus Schmaus 23:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You added the following to Evolution (disambiguation):

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) it should be:

Disambiguation pages should point the user as fast as possible to the article he is interested in. Any additional wikilinks are only distracting. Markus Schmaus 02:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map updated

Please tell me if you can distinuish the colors on the map. Thanks. Hitokirishinji 14:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Are the colors distinguishing enough or would you think other colors for than the ones I used for France and Britain would help? I'd be glad to widen the bar. Hitokirishinji 08:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I forgot to say your guesses were correct. I supposed I should choose colors farther apart in the spectrum, especially the 0-500 color.
The thing with China is that I didn't do anything to it. To me it looks just as grey as everything else. What do you see China as? Hitokirishinji 16:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm this is strange. I checked the color for China using the RGB code and it's the same combination of colors as the rest of the "uncolored" countries. Tell me, do you see Russia and China as the same color? Because both are supposed to be uncolored. I don't quite understand what you mean by "You could put the China "color" on the bar by putting in a section that you do the same "nothing" to it as you did China. Maybe put the bar ON china?" ?

Hey I've updated the map, new colors and added more info, please let me know if the new colors help. Hitokirishinji 15:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Q: Why is Sweden portrayed as a country that posted the cartoons ?. To my extend of knowledge the governement did in fact censor a publishing from a political party called Sverigesdemokraterne, by shutting down their website.

A:You are confusing government behavior with the behavior of newspapers within a country. In the west, newspapers are not controlled by the government. The citizens that own them have the right to publish facts and opinions and speculations. It's called freedom. And if the government does not like it we the people will fire their sorry ass and replace them. Read the American Declaration of Independence for the idea that we the people have the right to institute whatever government we want. WAS 4.250 14:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ignorant insults

Before you distribute gratuitous insults, you should check your facts. If I was not a physicist, as you seem to believe, it would be difficult to explain why NASA gave me $300,000 for fusion propulsion research and what I am doing down here at the European Southern Observatory as a visiting astronomer, or for that matter how I got all my papers published.

What people like you don't realize is that cosmology is science, not religion. It's observations that count. Attempts to ignore things that invalidate a theory like the Big Bang, or to censor them as Joshua Schroeder and others try to do, has nothing to do with science.--Eric LernerElerner 16:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I have not distributed "gratuitous insults". I have questioned various things about you. That you find my scepticism to be an insult is no concern of mine. I do believe you are a "physicist". Some are better than others. I have doubts about how good a physicist you are; not whether or not you are one. A friend of yours worked or works at NASA according to your web site. Inside influence? Kickbacks? I don't know. But getting a contract proves little. Not getting it renewed proves at least as much.Being a visiting astronomer and publishing papers is par for the course for both good and bad physicists and does not prove which you are. I do realize "cosmology is science, not religion. It's observations that count." You declare things about me which are not true with remarkable ease - maybe you also do that in the field of physics? As I say, I have my doubts about you. And this intemperate outburst certainly doesn't change my mind. You talk as if no one can honestly disagree with you. WAS 4.250 16:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo links

Thanks for digging up the source material for Jimbo's request about divisive templates -- I'd been hoping to find all that info in one place, and now, well, there it is. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 16:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You are very welcome. WAS 4.250 17:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] H5N1

The coding at the bottom of the article looks to be overly-specific and in the wrong place, so I was about to remove it - however I notice that this has already happened and been reverted. I wonder if we might be able to come to an agreement about it? Why is it important that it stays in the article? Thanks Cpc464 04:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you refering to a detailed description of the structure of an RNA molecule that defines part of what the H5N1 is? How is part of the blueprint for the item the article is about wrong to put in the article? Some people come to this article claiming viruses don't even exist. Or that what some one said 100 years ago about the subject is still true. People need to be face to face with the level of detail modern science has on the subject so they don't believe all the nonsense out there. See Antoine Bechamp and Homeopathy and [2]. WAS 4.250 14:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

Hey thanks for the kind words... you're right, I haven't done much on improving actual articles I'm afraid. Part of it is that I've been on vacation and don't have access to my journals and books. But more to the point, I've just been trying to get over the jitters-- I don't want to step on any toes. But I'm getting more bold, and I'm confident that over time I can make improvements here for the better.

Thanks. Freddie deBoer 20:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bird Flu information

Hiya! I think the section of the article about information sources is very limited and quite Americo-centric. I'd think it would be a good idea if we collected the websites and telephone helplines, etc, for as many different countries as we can, or at least as many English-speaking countries as we can. XYaAsehShalomX 14:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I see what you mean. So I changed the section, putting country specific data at the botttom. We currently have US and UK. India, Nigeria, Austrailia, Canada, and New Zealand might deserve an entry. Thanks for helping! WAS 4.250 14:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Tell me what you think so far? XYaAsehShalomX 19:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
You are doing a very good job. Congrats! Can I talk you into alphabetizing it? WAS 4.250 20:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I've got it into an alphabetical order...if we add many more countries I might do it in sections for each continent. :) XYaAsehShalomX 21:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
A word of caution - this is an encyclopedia - we are pushing the envelope as it is with being a useful source of current pandemic information that is borderline encyclopedic ... And this is the English version of Wikipedia, non English nations' stuff should go in their own Wikipedias. You have done an excellent job. Thank you. But expanding it beyond encyclopedic limits has to be a consideration at some point. If the virus becomes transmissible human to human, the concern of encyclopedic or not goes out the window; but until then, some level of concern is in order (how much concern is warrented is not knowable ... we feel our way forward I guess). WAS 4.250 23:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right, there's a limit to the amount of stuff that's relevant to this article. I just added the official defra helpline for reporting infections, and if we need to add any more I will :) x XYaAsehShalomX 17:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarfati

The Sarfati article is currently undergoing major discussions about how to redo it here: [3]. It may be more productive if you join in there than make various edits to the page right now. JoshuaZ 21:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Censorship

Thanks for finding that quote - I think it captures the intent of the page - and is worded in such a way as to avoid my concerns. Trödel•talk 16:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congress edits

Thanks for supplying the link at User talk:Jimbo Wales. What I couldn't find anywhere, is a temporary injunction. According to Auntie Beeb, the Congress IPs have only been blocked for short periods of time. Accordign to the RfC, the IPs had been blocked and unblocked. What seems to have been the latest block, given on February 1st, expired after three hours. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 09:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is all about ("I have no idea what your problem is" has wrong connotations). Do you know something happened and you are looking for a source? Blocking is done as little as possible. Maybe the evidence is that it is a tempest in a teacup and you are looking for wind damage to the house? WAS 4.250 11:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know from the RfC that Congress staffers have edited wikipedia. Some of these edits were pov (adding praise, removing criticism, or vice versa), some were vandalism (like adding the name of ScottMcClellan to douche) and some were good contributions. I'm interested in this case, because it's the first time such a high profile institution has been so directly linked to wikipedia that it has led to an RfC. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 11:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You are exactly right. I am also interested. It's just that as near as I can tell, it was mostly teenage or college age volunteers goofing around. A tempest in a teapot. WAS 4.250 11:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] H5N1

Hi,

Should we discuss here instead of messing up the main page?

The WHO July 2003 report I quoted actually included the same events that you quoted in the earlier Feb 2003 report. In summary, it says:

1) From Dec 2002 to Feb 2003. Some "Pneumonia cases" in Guangdong, China (i.e, the "suspicious" reports you quoted, that the Chinese claimed to be "not connected to the father and son H5N1 case in HK" and was "under control"). The Guangdong cases was identified a few months later to be Sars, NOT H5N1 (July Report)

2) The Feb 2003 (father and son) case: a family developed h5n1 in HK after visiting Fujian, China. It was reported to WHO (July Report). FYI: Fujian and Guangdong are different provinces in China


3) The Guandgong pneumonia later spread to HK, then to the rest of the world, which was then known as Sars. - See "July Report".

4) There is no "discrepancy" between the July and the Feb reports. Both described the father and son case as H5N1, PLEASE READ MORE CAREFULLY.

(BTW. I was in HK at that time. As I remember, there was some disagreement between HK and mainland China regarding the source of the Feb 20003 cases. (HK claimed the victim got it in mainland, mainland claimed that they got it after returning to HK.), but it was reported to WHO by HK nevertheless. (unsigned comment by User:Sorgwa)

Responded to at Talk:Global spread of H5N1. WAS 4.250 19:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add her own summary?

She replaced Tony's summary with one that was substantially inaccurate. Tony is, as he himself says, one of her supporters. How is that "bullying"? Guettarda 16:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[4] Huh? Guettarda 16:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you please spell out more clearly what you are trying to say? I don't follow your shorthand. Guettarda 16:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Response at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel. WAS 4.250 16:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You have? I am so confused. I don't see any response there. Guettarda 16:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I have a very slow computer and an even slower connection. I think it uses mechanical parts as logic gates :) Give me a minute or two not a second or two. WAS 4.250 16:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
So both sides are bullying and trying to control the summaries of the other - I don't agree with this assertion at all. I was not trying to control the summaries. If anything, Tony is a member of the "other side". Aa deleted Tony's summary (which, in my opinion, was a fair summary of the dispute) and replaced it with a one-sided summary of her own. I was not trying to present "my side's" summary. I think your characterisation is very unfair. Guettarda 18:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I am very saddened by your choosing to assume bad faith. Guettarda 18:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
One more thought - on what are you basing your assertion that Aa is entitled to present her own summary? As I understand it, parties in the dispute are not supposed to be presenting summaries - that's for the clerks. As a party to the dispute, Tony is too close to formally present a summary either, which is probably why he only did it on the talk page (in response to Ta Bu's request for one). Nonetheless, he presented a fair summary. If Aa had a problem with it, she could have appealed for another party to present a summary, but I don't see what right she had to present a summary of her own. Guettarda 18:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I suppose my point is - Tony's summary does not present the case the way I see it. But there is no reason for me to assume that the case should be presented the way I see it. You seem to be saying that Aa has the right to present a summary of the case the way she sees it. I don't understand why it is "bullying" to try to maintain a balanced presentation. Our side has not attempted to present a summary. I just don't understand what I am doing wrong here. I really don't. I am not trying to fight. I am trying to understand the logic behind your assertion that I did wrong, and why you choose to use such objectional edit summaries and characterisations of the issue.
It seems like you are saying that, in addition to a (fairly) neutral summary, Aa is entitled to a non-neutral summary of her own. Why do you feel that the other side is entitled to two summaries? Why do you feel that "partisan" summaries are required at all? Look at the facts of the case as presented - do you feel that her summary is more accurate than Tony's? A summary is not a place to argue a case, it's a place to lay out both sides' arguments. Do you feel that Aa's summary does that better than Tony's? Do you feel that Aa's summary lays out both sides of the case? If so, please explain it to me. I am not that stupid. Please - I am not trying to fight or to shoult you down - I am just trying to understand the logic upon which you base your position. Thank you. Guettarda 18:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. I really have no idea what you are talking about. "Fairness includes paying attention so ganging up doesn't occur"? How does allowing one side to have two summaries prevent gaining up? How does your assertion that one side should have two summaries prevent ganging up? You are facilitating ganging up.
  2. I think all fair minded people will agree each side has the right to their own short summary. You disagree If "all fair minded people...agree" can you show me an example? Can you show me in which other cases multiple summaries are used? Your implication that I am not a "fair-minded person" is quite an insult - and is unsupported by the facts, as far as I am aware of them. Instead of slinging insults, why don't you provide some diffs to disprove my assertion that multiple partisan summaries are no used in arbcomm cases?
  3. "I am simply astonished that both sides see fit to rewrite the opinions of the other side". What? Tony provided a summary. Agapetos angel re-wrote his summary. "Both sides"? I find your assertion baffling. Guettarda 02:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You could at least take a stab at explaining your logic, you know, instead of making glib statements of dismissal. Guettarda 15:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I like you far too much to further upset you. WAS 4.250 15:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:I am puzzled.

I am very sorry to hear about your problem. Perhaps, it would be a good idea to approach an administrator or bureaucrat for help. Additionally, you may have to scan your computer for viruses or malware. Hope to see your problem being solved soon! --Siva1979Talk to me 16:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nikki Craft

If you are ready to conceed the point, please remove your delete tag ASAP. We can close the item out to save the admins time. Talk page and logs must be updated. If you do not know how, I can do those latter items for you. AWM -- 68.122.118.161 10:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have every confidence that admins will do what is proper when it is proper. I am ready to concede that further involvement on my part is unwise as I, rather than the noteability of the article, have been increasingly a focus. WAS 4.250 10:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Durova and AA

WAS, below Durova's comment you noted, "Half the problem would go away if both sides would agree to not edit other people's opinions even if they list your name as agreeing with them when you didn't". I agree, except I think only AA did that. The other half of the problem would have gone away had AA answered two simple questions: do you work for AiG? and are you related to (married to, whatever) Sarfati. Had she simply said yes or no, the issue would have just gone away, basically. A no answer, and nothing else. A yes, and we would have requested that she edit on the talk page only. But, not answering pissed a lot of people off (besides the evil three or four of us named in the RfAr). Oh well, life is full of twists and and turns and ups and downs. Jim62sch 18:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have read comments by AA such as "Guettarda, expressing that you disagree with my assessment, that your dissent was implied, after my assessment is appropriate. Editing my post was not. agapetos_angel 04:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)" here without verifying for myself that it was so. My impression was that AA created a list of people she thought agreed with her and some people edited her opinion by deleting their names. Is this inaccurate? WAS 4.250 18:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

She put his name and comments on a fake straw poll (which she later stated was not intended to be a straw poll at all, but, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...), and the comments appeared as if Guettarda had put his name in as a "user supporting this statement". Guettarda reveted her post, and ripped into her. Then, I think she put it back, he reverted, etc. I need to do a little research on what happened after the first revert. I'll get back to you. Jim62sch 22:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Whatever it was that happened; my interest, at this point, is "Half the problem would go away if both sides would agree to not edit other people's opinions even if they list your name as agreeing with them when you didn't" true or not. I will be greatly disapponted if your investigation reveals further issues. I know fraud is claimed, but I'm hoping whatever happened could have been dealt with by a means other than editing the alledged fraud. I have not seen with my own eyes what is alledged to be fraud and I'm hoping not to get that invoved. WAS 4.250 23:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, read these and decide (probably best to go right to left on the links, it'll make more sense). [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]And the beginning of the mess[15] Jim62sch 23:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I reluctantly read them all. I only found two worth further notice. Please comment on [16] and [17]. Thank you. (I think they are congruent with my previous statements.) WAS 4.250 23:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

AA continued to insert comments attributed to Guettarda after being told by three of us to stop. That in and of itself violates more Wiki rules than I have time to type. Jim62sch 22:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't "there" when it happened, I have not reviewed every single interaction, I agree I could be wrong in my conclusions; BUT: my perception is of four people acting in accordance to their interpretation of the rules with three people trying to spin a living person wiki biography in a "yeah, but he has no credibility" direction (I agree with the conclusion, but not the spin) and one person trying to spin it in as positive a way as they could; both sides USING the letter of the rules rather than the spirit behind the rules. Unconciously, I'm sure; it never LOOKS like bias to the biased person themself. I believe the solution here is to clarify inherently inconsistent rules rather than treat it like a deliberate act of wrong doing by anybody. Three people versus one feels to the three like they are right and the one is wrong; but feels to the one like being ganged up on by bullies. None of you four seems to be taking the feelings of the others into consideration, but continue insisting the other side can't possibly be behaving in good faith. I disagree and beg all involved to act as if there were good faith and see where it leads. WAS 4.250 10:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False claims about people

Making false claims about people is, in my opinion, unacceptable. It has nothing to do with editing other people's posts (though I thought it important to strike my name from the forged straw poll). The issue is that she falsely attributed an opinion to me, apparently for the purpose of creating some sort of controversy between her proposed version and the existing version. I find it unacceptable for someone to post intentionally misleading summaries. Regardless of whether her first "summary" (the forged straw poll) was intentionally false or simply an honest mistake, her re-posting the information showed intent in her falsehood. That is unacceptable. And since she refused to remove the information, I removed the entire post, in order to avoid editing her comment. And I am still await your clarification of your previous comments. Guettarda 23:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda, you are a tremendous asset to Wikipedia. Thank you for helping us make Wikipedia better. I, also, in my small way, am trying to help. False claims are a bad thing. Editing another's opinions, no matter how wrong those opinions are, might not be the best response. Are you able to accept any of this? WAS 4.250 00:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] How to make a guideline or policy

Thank you. As easy as that, huh? One simply changes the tag from proposed to guideline? No peer review by a board for of reviewers for guidelines or policies? If there is a procedure that I missed, I would appreciate a link :) DanielDemaret 16:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Be Bold, Wikipedia:IAR, Wikipedia:WWIN ? WAS 4.250 16:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1984

This was ment as a joke, right? Gerard Foley 17:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. An attempt at communicating in the form of parody. WAS 4.250 17:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It was very funny! Gerard Foley 17:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! We tried communicating in every other way that his suggestion turns a no-censorship proposal into a do-censor proposal, in vain. I thought, time to try humor. Glad you liked it. Frankly, I wonder if he is serious or just trolling us. WAS 4.250 17:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attacking people

Perhaps what you are looking for is {{trollWarning}}. Gerard Foley 20:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the guy acting like a troll probably isn't. On the other hand, Jennifer has contributed nothing but generalized venom. I felt like just deleting all her "contributions", but wrote that instead. WAS 4.250 20:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello from 20 minutes south, well, ok 40 minutes during rush hour

I saw you added a full quote to HeLa, I switched it to "blockquote". Do you have access to the full article for Van Valen, Leigh M. & Maiorana, Virginia C. (1991): HeLa, a new microbial species. Evolutionary Theory 10:71-74.. I always wanted to read the full text. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't. So I posted the request at Talk:Evolution. I hope it works out. WAS 4.250 04:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] quick & easy: footnotes

Please say if you do or don't disagree with my proposed "simple" changes. Metarhyme 02:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. WAS 4.250 04:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] LibriVox

Hi WAS, thanks for the note. I am aware of the limits of wikipedia, and a big defender; and of course wikipedia (along with gutenberg) is the spiritual godparent of LibriVox. in fact, at librivox we have a very similar debate to the one about wikipedia's accuracy, in our discussions about "quality" of recording, and must regularly make the same defenses as wikipedia, as applied to audio (which I can't seem to find right now on our forum, otherwise I would give you the link, for interest). You also might be interested in this long defence of wikipedia I wrote in answer to a librarian who asked us to take wikipedia links off our pages because they are dangerous to her students: http://librivox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1016 ... so this is a little of background about why we got our backs up about the epsidoe: we feel like a sister project to wikipedia and it was, um, difficult to be labeled linkspam & threatened with a blockage.

re: links, though, I understand fully the concerns about not being a link farm, but wikipedia has very specific guidelines about *what* links should be allowed, external_links. see # 3 of "what should be linked to": "An article about a book, a musical score, a webcomic, a web site, or some other media, *should link to the actual book,* musical score, etc. if possible." So in fact Wikipedia policy says EXPLICITLY that gutenberg text should be linked to; and LibriVox recordings of the actual book should, I think, be linked to as well - especially since they are free non-commercial (different story if its amazon selling the book, or audible selling the mp3s). Too me the question of whether the links are good is far far more important than who does the linking, or how, which is where & why we got caught in the mess in the first place. Anyway it seems as if a slightly cumbersome solution has been reached, though not my preferred becuase it is inefficient & head-ache inducing, but it is a solution nonetheless, and if its the best we can do then that's fair game. PS thanks for making the LV page! Mackinaw 23:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


sorry about the tildas - I keep forgetting; been a while since i've been wikipedi-ing. I think I'll have to hang up my wikipedia hat for a while after this comment - verging on 12 hours straight now! ... but, anyway wikipedia has prescriptive and proscriptive policies about links. The prescriptive says: "an article about a book ... should link to the actual book," (see external_links) ie if there's a gutenberg text, it should be linked from the article. this is not the same as an article in the dictionary of philosophy, which is not the "actual text," and so should be treated differently. The proscriptive policy says, among other things, that wikipedia, "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files." So in deciding whether or not a link like this ought or not to be included, it seems to me the process should be: "is it the actual book"? Yes --> include it; No --> then evaluate based on other criteria. Anyway, the issue regarding LV is resolved to everyone's (i hope) satisfaction, so this is kind of a semantic debate, but the point is well-taken regarding editing behaviour & how the massive LibriVox edit wave looks to wikipedians like linkspam - esp when the editor is not logged in.Mackinaw 00:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
one other quick note too: there could, of course, be debate about whether or not an audio recording of a text is in fact the "actual book" ... but that's another kettle of fish.Mackinaw 00:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


I saw your note on the Jimbo Wales talk page, and Mackinaw's talk page. If only you had stepped into this discussion a day ago. I don't know if you've seen the back and forth between Mackinaw and Mel Etitis, but the result has been frustration on our (Librivox's) part. We've come to the point that we don't want to bother with Wikipedia anymore. I think the consensus among those of us who have been active in this conversation at Librivox is that if Wikipedia values links to Librivox, you'll add them. If not, we're not going to the effort to do so.

I can see now that we should have only added links to the page of the work in question. By the way, it was my additions that Mel Etitis reverted that brought this about (I'm not aware of any other reverts he made).

I still don't understand why the amount of links that are added is a problem. I don't see why they have to be done one at a time, over several days distance, but there's no need to explain such to me. We were adding links as projects were completed, and I'm guessing that we complete one or two plus projects a week. Of course, if we had only been linking to the work in question rather than the author page as well, more than half of the links that were added wouldn't have been added.

Anyways, since you expressed an interest in this situation based upon your comments, I felt the need to respond. -GreenKri 20:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] copyright, gutenberg & librivox

each recording starts: "this is a librivox recording, all librivox recordings are in the public domain," read by the reader of the rest of the recording. so we *hope* that that gives us the cover required. and we're in the process of gettign some legal advice on various things, but we are still very grassroots - we have not a dime anywhere in the project. everythign is volunteer.

re: gutenberg, they have mainly short works, where we have many long works. but in fact we are working with gutenberg to figure out how best to coordinate efforts; the problem is figuring out whether to just link to our titles from gutenberg pages; or to put LV recordings (many gigs) on their servers. the link solution is the obvious choice, but for some tech reasons, it's not so straightforward. but you'll note that gutenberg mentions LibriVox (as well as a couple of similar projects) on their audio page: http://www.gutenberg.org/audio/ ... but gutenberg's main focus is text, not audio - so the discussions we're having is to become the (or perhaps one of several) audio arm of gutenberg.Mackinaw 00:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Censorship

I have been removing personal attacks from this page but they keep getting re-added. Any idea what should be done about it? Thanks, Gerard Foley 01:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with telling people not to make personal attacks? Gerard Foley 02:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Nothing is wrong with "telling people not to make personal attacks". Nothing at all. You should be proud of standing up for wikipedia principles to the extent that you did that. Did you do anything more than that? Think. Why am I singling out the third message on their talk page and not the first two. I bet you know the answer. I bet you knew the answer before you posted here. Be honest with yourslf concerning both your actions and your motivations. Wikipedia is not a battleground and the rules are not excuses for attacking others with swords of righteousness. WAS 4.250 02:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest, you have completely lost me. If you're asking why my third request to the talk page was more forceful, that's because it was the third time I've had to say it.Gerard Foley 02:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
We both know I haven't lost you because we both know I am talking about what you just now referred to as being "more forceful". You did not have to be "more forceful". You made a choice. A wrong choice. An inappropriate choice. A choice you should apologise for. Everyone makes mistakes. Apologise and you've undone it. Don't apologize and you both are in the wrong; not just the other person. WAS 4.250 02:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I did make some wrong choices.
I chose to make a stand against these attacks.
I chose to tell the person making them to stop.
I chose to ask for help from other Wikipedia users.
We all learn from our mistakes. Next time I see personal attacks being made I'll defend the person making them. Perhaps WP:NPA should be marked as historical. Maybe it was somthing people followed in the past, but it's not somthing anyone cares about now. Thanks for your help. Gerard Foley 18:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry for anything I have done that in any way leads you to say: "Next time I see personal attacks being made I'll defend the person making them." WAS 4.250 18:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] librivox & spamming

re: spamming: my [[18]] show a bunch of what might look spam-like stuff which was march 12, re-adding 7 links that User:Mel_Etitis had removed, i thought wrongly (I presume this is one reason everything went so sour). Prior to that march 12 episode I had 7 edits relating to librivox, from Oct 7-Nov 21, a 45 day period. which seems to me reasonable.

re: who can add links: according to User:Mel_Etitis, however, I cannot, nor can any LibriVox volunteer add links to LV, even to appropriate content (ie the actual book), on the appropriate page (the article about the actual book), even in moderation. instead we must post in the talk pages & wait for someone else to post the link

what links are spam: If adding the link to the actual book on the book page is ok, but adding a link to the Author page is not OK, that makes sense to me. if adding links to short works or poerty is not acceptable because of linkfarm worries, that sounds reasonable to me. a message saying such nicely would have been well-received I am sure. but here is the message kri got: "Please stop. If you continue to use Wikipedia for advertising, you will be blocked from editing." see [19]. Thinking that unfair she responded. I responded. I re-linked (I don't know how to revert, I am just a traveller here, not a native). Acrimonious debate raged. The upshot of which was that User:Mel_Etitis stated that: 1. he agreed that LV content *should* be linked on the page of the text 2. but that LV volunteers are *not allowed* to make the link. (they can suggest the link on the talk page). which seems to me a crazy sort of policy. but then perhaps it is because I am looking at wikipedia from the outside as a user of the resource, and not from the inside. if it is agreed that wikipedia policy says the link *should be there* then, as a user, I find it difficult to understand why anyone would enforce a rule about *who* adds the link. If it's questionable content, I understand. But if policy says explicitly it should be there, then it should be there. Note that I very much understand that there is a difference between linking on the author page, or linking to short works; but for long texts the policy seems clear to me, says wikipedia external links policy: "An article about a book...should link to the actual book."

Now the big problem in the background in all this is we have a big community of volunteers over at librivox, many of whom feel insulted by User:Mel_Etitis's handling of this. And I feel I was insulted personally several times -- though that's not very important; presumably Mel feels the same way. But the impression over at LV is basically that wikipedia has been very hostile to our project; and other than Jimbo (and you for writing the article), not supportive at all. User:Mel_Etitis suggests a sort of probationary status for LV volunteers, and I guess understandably they didn't react well.

It is really no skin off LibriVox backs whether the links are in wikipedia or not. But It seems to me they *should* be here; just as they should be in gutenberg too (which we are working on). The beauty of wikipedia is that it was easy for us to get the links here. now it is hard(er), and everyone is pissed off for how LibriVox was treated by (a) wikipedia admin. The losers are wikipedia users who now will not have links to resources which are explicitly stated as a link that *should* be in an article. Whew. -unsigned comment by User talk:Mackinaw

  1. re: who can add links: Anyone can add a link. Anyone can delete a link. If you want a link to stay, you have to take into account the behavior of other contributors. Is it too much to ask to take others into account?
  2. according to User:Mel_Etitis ...: Mel is an outstanding wikipedia contributor. He also pisses people off every now and then. Don't make Mel or what he said the issue. Move on. Learn, forgive and forget. Feel free to deal with me instead of Mel if you wish. I won't spam for you. I am willing to add links where I believe they are appropriate. I am very concerned about me adding a link to a very poor quality audio. I would like something in the way of quality assurance before I add any more links than I already have. Gutenburg vouching for a specific recording might be a quality asurance idea.
  3. if adding links to short works or poerty is not acceptable because of linkfarm worries, that sounds reasonable to me. No. Links to poetry and short works are NOT spam if the audio work is the reading of that poem or short work. Don't put a link to a reading of a poem on a book article just because one of the many poems in the book is that poem. Don't put a link on an article about constitutional law, instead of on the article about the constitution itself. The more specific the better. And again, if the article doesn't exist, create it. Don't just say, well, this is the closest article. It's the difference between the attitude of improving wikipedia and the attitude of promoting a website.
  4. Now the big problem in the background in all this is we have a big community of volunteers over at librivox, many of whom feel insulted: So you are their leader. Lead. Calm them down. Say Take your time. Don't be pushy. Create quality assurance. Deal with WAS if you want. Don't revert war on wikipedia. Don't act like they owe you. If you go there to improve wikipedia, you will find it a wonderful place.
  5. It seems to me they *should* be here; just as they should be in gutenberg too (which we are working on). The beauty of wikipedia is that it was easy for us to get the links here. It seems to me they should be here too. Haste makes waste. Relax. WAS 4.250 21:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
ah, thank you. so now: a few days of relaxation to get this out of my system, a revised guide to wikipedia postings on librivox forums, taking into consideration what causes problems re: linkspam, what an acceptable link is, what is not; encouragement to add content & not just links. a clear path to a sensible solution for everybody.
re: quality, this is an issue that other wikipedians will have to consider. Our policy is this: we do not judge recording style, only technical quality/consistency. meaning you get some good books, some less good ones; some good chapters, some less good. we do have a proof-listening procedure to make sure there are no problems, but "bad" readers are not discouraged. however, we cribbed a corollary policy from some idealistic web project or other: listeners who think the quality of a particular recording is not good enough, are encouraged to make another recording and we will happily post the new recording along side the old. audio wiki. so we cannot guarantee quality of every recording, but we can encourage users to make LV better.
thanks again. faith in humanity restored.Mackinaw 00:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
oh and, quickly, one last thing: "Is it too much to ask to take others into account?" certainly not, but mel stated that LV volunteers were not allowed to post links to LV content (except on talk pages), which seemed to me a bit ...excessive. what i don't want to see is a wp admin policy that states LV links are to be deleted if it is found that they have been made by a LV volunteer. mel is my first experience of a reprimanding admin, and if he tells me LV volunteers can't post links, then I believe him, and i think it's nuts, and i will argue the case until everyone gets cranky. but if you now tell me that LV volunteers should be careful when posting links, then i say, ok that makes sense, thank you, and i will convey this to everyone at LV.

Mackinaw 00:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


You are a joy to work with.
If someone wants me to post a link to an audio, I would want them to have listened to the audio themself and further not be the person that made the audio and further review it in a paragraph posted somewhere (eg here, their user page, or the talk page of the article in question). For example, why don't you tell me about the very best audio at your site that you personally have listened to and yet did not yourself provide the voice for? :If someone wants to post a link themself, they can judge whether it is allowed for themself. May I suggest WP:IAR as intersting reading in that regard. My paraphrase of it is that anyone can do anything once, and if people complain don't do that again. People can decide for themself what it was they did that caused complaints. In your case, it seems you have a good grasp on what you did wrong. But why make waves? Proceed cautiously. You yourself shouldn't post links to your website. Let it be done by others. Fans of your site rather than volunteers at your site. Friends rather than relatives. Think "aiming at objectivity". Rules here are guides, not absolutes. The only absolute is "whatever makes wikipedia a better free neutral verifyable encyclopedia". To maintain the "neutral" part we discourage postings from interested parties. Consider you and other "interested parties" officially discouraged from posting links to your site on the article pages, but not banned from that. The key is: Help us build a free neutral verifyable encyclopedia rather than looking for rules to justify using us as a billboard. WAS 4.250 00:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


ah, so. now we seem to be back at the beginning, but in a much more sensible way. so, here's the issue: librivox is a complicated project to run. (this may bore you, but...) it works like this: a volunteer willing to coordinate a book recording (meaning assign chapters, collect recordings, veriify meta data etc) posts a project on our forum, in the Reader's Wanted Section. that volunteer is Book Coordinator for, say, White Fang. Then volunteers post saying: "i'll take chap 5" etc. recordings are made. eventually all the chapters are claimed, and then more eventually all the chapters are recorded and completed. The Book Coordinator now sends all these audio files to a Meta Coordinator. The Meta Cooordinator reverifies all meta data, then posts recording in Listeners Wanted section. This is our proof-listening section where people check recordings for tech problems - though as mentioned we don't make judgements about reading style, only things like bad sound quality etc. Then the audio is put into a validator, software that checks meta data, reads & generates info about file size and recording length, and then allows the Meta Coordinator to add things like the names of readers of each chapter, their URL, the links to the appropriate pages in wikipedia (ie we link from our catalog page to wikipedia articles about the writer and about the work), and the gutenberg e-text. From the validator, we generate a catalog page (for instance: http://librivox.org/white-fang-by-jack-london/) and upload to archive.org, where we host our files. It turns out that uploading to archive.org is very arduous, labour intensive, and non-intuitive. but at the end of all that we have a catalog page, and available files. We currently have 150 or so such projects underway (though about 50% are solo which are easier to manage).
And the last stage in the catalog process: we have a LibriVox Wikipedia page on our forum, where we post the URL of the newly completed recordings, to be linked on the appropriate wikipedia page. any volunteer can swing by and add the link - probably it's a volunteer who likes wikipedia. occasionally it's me - but certainly not lately. I stay as far away from the catalog process as possible, and spend my time, rather, doing stuff like this ;)
we also suggest that someone (say the book coordinator) inform any sites dedicated to that author/book of the existence of the librivox recording, to make a link if they wish.
So in fact adding a link to wikipedia is an extra step in our cataloging process, which itself is a long and complicated process involving many hours of volunteer time & effort.
Now if you are saying that it is inappropriate for us to have this step in the catalog process, well, I personally disagree, but it makes one less step for our catalogers to worry about. Whether we are in wikipedia or not is immaterial to me personally, and would not seem to have much impact on the project -- for instance, we get only a trivial amount of traffic from wikipedia, again, not that that matters much. But it seems to me, as mentioned, that the wikipedia articles *should* contain links to the LV recordings.
now if the links *should* be there, but *LVer shouldn't* make those links, again I think that's a crazy policy. But i suspect wikipedia probably needs a certain amount of crazy policies - it's a crazy beautiful project after all. We can drop this from the catalog process, though there will be (ie there are already) many angry librarians at librivox shaking their heads - and i don't know if you know what a forum full of angry librarians looks like, but it ain't pretty.
so you suggest we drop wikipedia links out of our catalog process, right?
re: good recordings, I can give you many many good ones to check our if you wish:
  1. FINNISH: Aho, Juhani. Helsinkiin
  2. JAPANESE: Bashō, Matsuo. Oku no Hosomichi
  3. CHILDRENS: Burnett, Frances Hodgson. A Little Princess
  4. SOLO: Christie, Agatha. The Mysterious Affair at Styles
  5. COLLABORATIVE: Dostoyevsky. Notes from the Underground
my personal favourite so far is "notes" (disclaimer, I read a couple of chapters in it; and it was an early completion). The variation in reading style is big. The first chapters are not "read well" by holywood standards, but Gord, for instance is a great, trained reader. But what I realized listening to this work, was that it's the text itself that finally is the most important. Great text is strong enough to handle ANY reader, whatever their qualities. Many different dostoyevskys speak to you in this work. all compelling for their own qualities, & their amazing, human, naked and vulnerable faults. But you can hear the love in every voice, for every word uttered, and there is something magic about that, something so outside, beyond, the standards we have been trained to accept in a "recording". A funny aside: I can no longer listen to professional readings of text: they are so cold, so lacking in flaws, so lacking in humanity. it spoils everything.Mackinaw 02:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] OK, got it

So, that clarifies things, and in a reasoned way. Thanks for that. Now, the great hope is that non-LVers on wikipedia take up the cause - which might get tricky because we hope that anyone making LV links will also be tempted to read for us - which will compromise their impartiality ;) Mackinaw 03:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedians all hope to alter the "impartiality" of its readers. Towards increased impartiality! And we do that by providing more information. And now thnks to you, that "more information" can include audio. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for helping provide information to all mankind. Bravo to you sir! WAS 4.250 03:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] and can i suggest ...

...that the External_link policy be updated to say this explicitly? ie to say that the don't link if it's your site -put it in talk. If this had been clear to me & clearly stated in the policies, instead of the conflicting policies (link this; don't link this) which seemed to me to be open to interpretation, i suspect we all would have saved much time & anguish. Mackinaw 00:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an everybody can edit anarchy, in spite of recent events to the contrary. Improve it yourself ONCE. Clue me in. We'll improve what needs improving. You have every right and we have every expectation for you to contribute by direct change of what needs changing. Don't be shy. Just don't revert!!! (talk on the talk page instead of reverting) WAS 4.250 01:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

My wife may cut off my fingers & smash my computer before I get the chance; but I will try.Mackinaw 01:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I burst out laughing reading that. I used to be married. Divorced for many decades. I'm still in love with who she was (not who she is). Gee ... now I'm not laughing... WAS 4.250 01:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Can I make LV-related additions/links to Talk pages? in particular the public domain resources (grr) etc.Mackinaw

Anyone not banned (example you) can add anything (example LV) to any talk page about anything that relates to editorial decisions concerning the encyclopedia article it is a talk page for. To say it another way: Don't spam talk pages either. But you can add relevant information to any talk page for any article such that an unbiased editor could use information from you in helping them decide how to make it a better encyclopedia article. Again, the whole issue is we are writing an encyclopedia, not hosting a blog or webvertizement. The talk pages are to help us write the article the talk page is attached to. Philosophy, chit-chat, and promoting things (people, ideas, sites, products, services) occurs but is frowned on. Good contributors having a little fun is normal and accepted as helping to build the community that is building the encyclopedia. Outsiders (to the article, not necessarily to wikipedia) coming to an article talk page for the sole purpose of promoting something (usually creationism, anarchy, socialism, capitlism, etc more than say ivory soap) are asked to go away. See the archives of the evolution talk page for an unending series of people coming there to tell us the page is biased and should include more about creationism or any anarchy article talk page for an unending debate over anarchy as a philosophy as much as the article itself. Our article on the cartoons that were protested around the world had a talk page that was repeatedly contributed to with arguments pro and con censorship. These are examples of what we try to have less of, as they don't help build the encyclopedia, and just use us as a talk forum which is not our mission. Does that answer you question? WAS 4.250 12:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"See the archives of the evolution talk page" ... is that meant as some kind of punishment for trouble caused? Mackinaw 13:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution/Archive_012#Pointless_Macroevolution_Rant cracks me up. WAS 4.250 14:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Influenza

Regarding your revert at Influenza:

I think you may have made a mistake, see diff

Prodego talk 21:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I intended to only revert cold=flu. But I also reverted the other edit which I would neither delete myself nor purposefully undelete. If you think my mistake is the cold=flu thing, no that is not a mistake. If you feel the genetic code should be deleted, I woudn't revert you if you choose to delete it. I like it there, but I fully understand the reasons for someone thinking it would be best to delete it. And because of this conversation, it would be a mater of honor that if I accidently undeleted this a second time, I would have to revert myself upon discovering that second accidental undeletion. (In other words, it really was an accident.) WAS 4.250 22:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Ahh yes, I should have reverted that too, but I didn't notice(I was busy with real vandalism :-) Anyway someone else has removed it, so it is fixed now. Happy editing! Prodego talk 22:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] LibriVox Wikipedia Policy

If interested, here is new LibriVox link/wikipedia info page from our forum: http://librivox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=21254 Mackinaw 16:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • a link from a page about, say, a collection of poems to ONE poem at LV is NOT good
  • avoid adding just links; better to add some content as well

I would emphasize that if the poem or book does not have an article, they are encouraged to create the article. Just don't create an article that is too much of a stub (too short) or breaks copyright laws or doesn't indicate importance (who is the author? what comments have important people made about it? Google is your friend here.) Look at similar articles and copy their style, including relevant categorization, subsection headings, reference style. But then that's what I would emphasize. Were I to edit that page and say all of this, maybe you would get on me for spamming your site! Ha! Cheers. WAS 4.250 17:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, in fact we encourage everyone to make comments on everythign at LV. and the only two contentious issues we've had at LV were not related to spamming, but rather one long strange fight about how we are "too nice" and enforce niceness too stringently; and the other regarding quality, that our policy to let ANYONE record for a book is too lax - so that you get uneven quality from chapter to chapter. however that's a fundamental principle. (but, anyway, I'll make that change you suggest).
And re: "Were I to edit that page..." you, like everyone, are encouraged to comment on the forum ;) ... and perhaps while you're there you might sign up for to read a chapter as well? (though then you'd be in trouble if you ever decided to upgrade a LV link from a Talk page, to put it on the actual wikipedia article page!!). Mackinaw 17:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
See Conflict of interest which says : Someone accused of a conflict of interest may deny that a conflict exists because he/she did not act improperly. In fact, a conflict of interest does exist even if there are no improper acts as a result of it. (One way to understand this is to use the term "conflict of roles". A person with two roles - an individual who owns stock and is also a government official, for example - may experience situations where those two roles conflict. The conflict can be mitigated - see below - but it still exists. In and of itself, having two roles is not illegal, but the differing roles will certainly provide an incentive for improper acts in some circumstances.) [...] Those with a conflict of interest are (ethically) expected to recuse themselves from (i.e. abstain from) decisions where such a conflict exists. WAS 4.250 18:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
ha! my wife is a doctor in the McGill University medical system: every year she teaches a big session for med students on conflict of interest in medicine. most doctors (let alone students) say: "even if it's improper for the pharmaceutical industry to bribe other doctors, I am very aware of what I am doing, so even if I accept gifts, it does not influence my medical decisions - therefore there is no conflict. I am too pure." I spent hours working on the wording of parts of her presentation to make this idea - that conflict exists regardless of moral purity or actual actions - clear to students. So: yes I've got it! I get it! I understand I understand, and all this has in fact - despite my grumbling - given me more faith, rather than less, wrt wikipedia's policies for neutrality. Now. time to do some real work. Mackinaw 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Influenza talk

Now that perhaps people have calmed down, I've moved the more personal comments to our user pages. My aim is not to reopen the confrontation but to explain my comments hopefully in a less agressive atmosphere.

[edit] further discussion

I'm not going to get drawn into an argument over this article, and for the benefit of future editors I suggest you adopt a less confrontational style of discussion. The fact is these articles are not logically separated or cross-linked. Hopefully at some point someone will be allowed to change that. I apologise for stepping on anyones toes. |→ Spaully°τ 20:46, 12 March 2006 (GMT)

You critisized me when I avoided arguing with you by giving my reason in the edit summary rather than the talk page and you misrepresented that by saying:"There was perhaps some irritation at the section being deleted without so much as an explanation on talk (which you'll notice I did when I reverted the first time, you did not)."
Now you critisize me by misrepresenting a full and substantive response as "confrontational". Your emotional response to simple evidence provided by me does not consitute evidence of anything wrong done by me.
You change the subject when you sneer: "The fact is these articles are not logically separated or cross-linked. Hopefully at some point someone will be allowed to change that." insinuating falsely that any such thing has occurred. In fact, I have reverted data contributed by you to this article that was completely unreferenced, partly false, and wholly neither new nor appropriate for this article and your response is to become upset, lie about my behavior and change the subject. If anyone wishes to help, I warmly welcome their help. These articles can use a lot of help. You did not help. That you added data that was "not logically separated" and then complain that's an area that needs improvement and critisize me for trying to keep the article from becomeing more "not logically separated" by reverting you ... well, the mendacity boggles the mind. WAS 4.250 21:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

First of all I apologise for some of the comments I made, those which I have put a line through and the original "you did not" regarding using talk.

To explain my second reply which was a bit short I've copied parts of your first talk page comment with why I felt it was innapropriate:

[edit] 1st reply

"I've looked at some of your edits so I know you are neither stupid nor ignorant. So I am left wondering what you are talking about."

Suggesting you think my edits to influenza are "stupid" and "ignorant".

"Notice the linked item described as the causative virus? Click on it. That IS the "hard to find" virus information. See the box on the right marked "Flu"? The last item is labeled "Phylogenetics" which links to the same article."

How am I supposed to feel anything but indignation at the patronising tone?

"Please don't edit war until you get your facts straight. (And even then, talking rather than edit waring is better)"

1.The second of my two edits was different to the first, taking into account your previous edit comment 2.Prior to my second edit I started a new section on the talk page, in which I explained my reasoning.

"As it is clear you don't know what you are talking about when you say "If I was wanting to find information about influenza, I would find it very hard to find out about the virus itself" I am going to revert you."

I tried to find the information, and so am in as good a position as anyone to make that claim. "It is clear you don't know what you are talking about" is hardly respectful.



I do not feel this adheres to WP:CIVIL, and incorrectly I responded to this in the same tone.

My comment regarding allowing others to edit the article was again innapropriate and stemmed from a feeling from looking through previous edits that you are close to violating WP:OWN. I don't still think this.

I will not retract my comment about your confrontational tone, as I feel you were confrontational, although I responded to this badly.


Reply if you wish, but my aim is just to explain and apologise for some of my comments. I hope that we can work together to improve these articles at some point. |→ Spaully°τ 13:18, 20 March 2006 (GMT)

[edit] Talk page editing

Just copied this here to bring it to your attention:

I was about to delete the last few comments again with this explanation:

Rest of the discussion moved to user talk pages (Spaully and WAS 4.250), as per Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages#Remove off-topic comments under not having any relevance to writing the article (linked to from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines; also suggested on Wikipedia:Taking it outside, although this is as yet only an essay. The content will be preserved on the user talk pages. |→ Spaully°τ 14:17, 21 March 2006 (GMT)

There seems to be a precedent for removing non-contributing comments from talk pages, and there is no doubt the final few messages were not useful. I'll wait for your comment however before I remove the information again. |→ Spaully°τ 14:17, 21 March 2006 (GMT)

You did not copy all deleted material to talk pages. Just archive it, if you wish. I disagree that it is off topic. It provides an example of what is not a helpful addition to the article space. But we both agree to that, it's old news, so archive it if it embarrasses you (it shouldn't, we all make mistakes). WAS 4.250 14:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] question: paleocene (not librivox!)

On the paleocene page there are a number of somewhat random & cumbersome references to a text (listed in the ref section) by Hooker, in a funny format. (Hooker). Is it standard to add references to works like this throughout the article? It seems that referencing some "facts" but not others is a bit odd; and if wikipedia articles referenced all facts - well it would be a mess. But rather than just remove though I would ask for some sage counsel. See Paleocene paleogeography for the specific issue in question.Mackinaw 17:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. Wikipedia is a work in progress at all times. You don't have to produce a perfect end product in order to contribute. We encourage everyone to help make wikipedia better any way they can. Some like to begin new articles and let others finish them. Some like to add lots of data. Some like to provide references. Some like to correct spelling and "copy-edit" in general. Some spend all their time removing vandalism. Some like to bring articles to "featured article" status, which is as close as wikipedia has to saying an article is "done" or good enough. Check out the features articles for the best examples of what we are aiming at. Feel free to improve articles with additional references, but removing references is usually very bad, because anybody can edit and it is only the references (sources) that let someone verify. We are trying to increase references, not decrease them. Thanks for asking. WAS 4.250 19:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

ok saw your edits. makes sense.

[edit] Disgusting

Obviously I was wrong to think you were a decent person. If you had read my evidence you would see that the straw poll I was refering to was not the revised version (which she posted after I struck out her forgery of my sig). I wasn't the only one who called it that - KC and Jim were on her case about her forged straw poll long before I saw it. But, obviously, you are going out of your way to post misleading diffs in an attempt at character assassination, to twist my words to make me look like a horrible person. Not much I can do about that. Oh well. You did a good job of fooling me. I would have hoped that you had the decency to say things like that to my face. But then, I made the mistake of thinking you were a decent person. Well, foolish me. I have no idea of what you agenda is or what motivates your dislike for me. I just deeply regret assuming good faith. Guettarda 01:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The above was in respose to the below posted at User talk:Agapetos angel. WAS 4.250 01:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] attempt at a summary

[edit] subsection containing quote from talk page

Consensus vote requested:

  • David D. (Talk) 03:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • agapetos_angel 02:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Isn't voting supposed to be evil? I've seen no direct objection to this reversion, but "we" are still reverting-on-sight from it, back to the version with the Funny Links. (Including in one case undoing my edit with with a "see talk" comment, which seems a little ironic.) Alai 04:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • A necessary evil though ;-) i have not even seen the article. it seems silly to edit it when there is so much discussion here. The history will not disappear. I'm interested to see how Joshua's new paragraph ends up below too. Things seem to be moving in the right direction. David D. (Talk) 05:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


So, from the people who have responded to this consensus attempt, I submitt that we have:

FOR the revised version:

  • David D. (who agreed above - 03:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
  • agapetos_angel
  • Alai (who expressed 'no direct objection' - 04:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
  • JoshuaZ (who said to count him in - 04:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

AGAINST the revised version:

  • Guettarda (who's descent was implied)


agapetos_angel 04:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Count me in as for. JoshuaZ 04:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What in the world are you doing? You seem to be creating a faux straw poll and adding people's names without their consent. That is NOT how Wiki works -- although if Wiki were a dictatorship... You seriously need to stop this now. Jim62sch 23:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Jim. That was not my intent at all. The parenthetical remarks (I've added more) were to show that I was adding the information as a summary, not a poll. I thought it was obvious that I am putting the information in bullets, not conducting a poll. I am trying to get this section back on track and resolved, without any further waffles about what this or that editor meant when they said such & such. Instead of responding like this, could you please stay on topic and 'ring in' on the header. I would appreciate, also, if you are against it, reasons why and suggestions to improve the proposed revision. agapetos_angel 23:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC) [20]

[edit] Comments

Calling the attempt at a summary a "straw poll" is either stupidity or deliberate disruption; in either case clear bullying. WAS 4.250 00:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In your original edit you wrote:

"So, from the people who have responded to this consensus attempt, we have the following 'votes' regarding the revision:

FOR the revised version:
* David D.
* agapetos_angel
* Alai (expressed 'no direct objection')
AGAINST the revised version:
* Guettarda (implied)"

What does "from" mean if people are voting here in this list? Why is "votes" in quote marks if it is a real vote? Why are there no time stamps if this is either a vote or a forgery of a vote? If Alai voted, why say (expressed 'no direct objection') in third person past tense rather than first person present tense? How can Guettarda say "implied" about his own vote? WAS 4.250 01:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

They were signed and linked. I was not the first or the only person to call it a forged vote. Thanks for proving my point - now you are adding personal attacks to your character assassinations. Obviously I was correct in my choice of header. I have no idea why you choose to engage in personal attacks and character assasinations, I have no idea why you choose to engage in a vendetta against me, but you have made your choice. You seem to think it ok to forge straw polls and you seem to thin it ok for people to post dishonest summaries. I never expressed any opposition to Aa's version. Her poll, which was signed (it had linked names separated into sections - I can't say I have seen that used for anything other than signatures), was not only a forgery, it also attributed a position to me which I not only had I never expressed, I had never held such a position. But you seem to think it ok, and you are claiming that much calling something that looked like a straw poll a straw poll is bullying. And then to add to that, you call me stupid? You know better than to engage in personal attacks. Please do not engage in personal attacks in the future. It is a violation of Wikipedia policy. I would also appreciate if you would remove your current personal attack against me. Not that I expect you would do so, given your recent behaviour. I have no idea what the source of your vendetta is, I have no idea why you choose to resort to character assassinations and personal attacks. I deeply regret thinking of you in a friendly light. I am, once again, thoroughly disgusted. Guettarda 05:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flo on my talking to someone else

WAS 4.250, how is the discussion at AA talk helpful toward settling the differences of the parties involved. This issue has been rehashed ad nauseam. IMO, outside parties should try to assist these users in moving past the dispute. Your comments seem to stoke the fire. FloNight talk 22:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think my "comments seem to stoke the fire". WAS 4.250 22:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if my comment seemed abrupt. But it did get your attention : ) Not saying you were doing something intentionally wrong. IMO, getting the sides to agree on the details of the dispute is unlikely. And any attempts at such are counterproductive. They need to move on. Agree to disagree. Others can encourage that outcome by moving on, too. Regards, FloNight talk 23:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, then! We are two sorry people. : )
I'm not saying you were doing something intentionally wrong in invoving yourself in a conversation between two other people. IMO, getting the sides to agree on the details of the dispute is impossible. Any attempts at such are counterproductive. They can move on when the rules concening anon-ship, bullying, and changing the opinions of others are clarified. Regards, WAS 4.250 01:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

A rude characterization of my action, but you get points for clever. FloNight talk 02:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing clever about this statement, though. Calling the attempt at a summary a "straw poll" is either stupidity or deliberate disruption; in either case clear bullying. WAS 4.250 00:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Curious about the point of this statement? FloNight talk 02:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Rude:
  1. Relatively undeveloped; primitive.
  2. Exhibiting a marked lack of skill or precision in work.
  3. Lacking the graces and refinement of civilized life.
  4. Lacking education or knowledge.
  5. Ill-mannered; discourteous.
  6. Vigorous, robust, and sturdy.
  7. Abruptly and unpleasantly forceful.

Clever:

  1. Mentally quick and original; bright.
  2. Nimble with the hands or body; dexterous.
  3. Exhibiting quick-wittedness: a clever story.
  4. New England. Easily managed; docile: “Oxen must be pretty clever to be bossed around the way they are”
  5. New England. Affable but not especially smart.
  6. Chiefly Southern U.S. Good-natured; amiable.WAS 4.250 02:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good grief. I just get done responding to one response and you not only have a second response, but you've stricken both of them. Striking says "You can still read this, but because I put a line though it, I disclaim responsibility for it." You can say you are wrong; you can delete this entire subsection with my blessing (really); you can explain the sriking; but striking alone just says to me that you want to be able to provoke without taking responsibility. In summary, I think we both want you to just delete or archive this whole conversation as a distraction, a misrepresentation (don't ask me of what, I'm on a roll here), and/or adding fuel to the fire. Peace, love, and truth to all my brothers [and sisters]. WAS 4.250 02:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

WAS 4.250, I struck it because:

  1. I'm going to be on 'pedia for the next 2-3 hours (long To do list)
  2. I thought you were going to respond (give me credit for being right)
  3. I had no way of knowing if you had seen it or not. (FloNight is not a crystal ball)
  4. My strike out and edit summary indicate desire to end our chat/spat. (Minus points for me for not saying so directly with an apology)
  5. I don't blank messages on another user's talk page. (Could you do it, please.)

FloNight talk 03:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC) p.s. I meant 1. Mentally quick and original; bright. FloNight talk 03:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi