Welcome!
Hello, Januszkarp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Vsmith 17:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Really, whatever the outcome on Aetherometry, all the best with your wheelchair work. That looks like fascinating engineering. Pgio 07:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC) And sorry if you're not THAT Karpinski. Pgio 07:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, TTLightningRod. I am responding here because this is also for Pgio. I would like to make clear so that you are not disappointed, that I am not proponent of aetherometry, although I am also not opponent of aetherometry. It is too complex to form judgement without much work and I dont have reason to wish to spend time on it. What gives me pain is connected with my son, who has 9 years and makes much use of internet. Naturally he goes to Wikipedia to learn. I make a lot of effort to teach my son values such as scientific method, open mind, not prejudice, standing away from own bias, clarity, refusing to make judgement without full knowledge. It is difficult because we all see so much quick judgement and bias in our surrounds, and so little examples for child of distance from own prejudices. But then my son goes to Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, to learn, and what he learns there? He learns a lot of things, but sadly he also learns, too many times, bias, prejudice, and hopping into judgement. And the problem is bigger than when he sees it in his surrounds, because here it is presented with authority, as being OK in an encyclopedia. And even worse, it is being presented as scientific. I think this is very bad, and I am not the only person who thinks this. With friends we have a kind of home-schooling scientific group for our children and this is problem for all of us, not that Wikipedia has some false information, because facts are easy to correct, but that it teaches wrong values and wrong behaviour as if it was OK for a scientist. It it very disturbing. We do not want to forbid our children from using Wikipedia, we want them to explore freely, but it is possible that we have no choice, because this kind of behaviour, where for example things are claimed as scientific judgement in Wikipedia by administrators without proper verification just to hurt someone or something, or because administrators who like the claim are a large group, is not example that we want to be followed by our children.
You mention another Karpinski and if I understand you correctly it is a woman. I am sorry, but I dont know who you mean. Can you explain? In Poland, a woman would be called "Karpinska" instead of 'Karpinski". For example my wife is Katarzyna Karpinska. But I know in U.S.A. names of many women of polish origin end with "ski". Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 22:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, TTLightningRod. Telling truth, I dont have objection to my son seeing harsh or even insulting words, so there is not need for your apology. I think harsh words and insults have place, and children need to know right words and right place for words. Harsh words are on surface and it is not so difficult to teach wanting to learn child what such words mean and when is proper to use them. Much more difficult is to teach child to recognize hypocrisy, prejudice hidden under surface and dressed up untruth. Hypocrisy is way of being and gets into blood. It is like poison that child drinks without knowing. Look, now I start to speak like some stern moralist of XVIII century. I am traveling in time these days.
I forgot name of Brigadier General was Karpinski! Thank you for reminding me. I am glad I am not THAT Karpinski, it must not be easy fate. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 19:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
You asked more about why I voted Keep for the article on aetherometry. I read carefully through 5 rules, 15 rules, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NOT among others and could not see a particular basis for delete. Whether true or not, this supposed letter from Jimbo to the Aetherometry folks describes my view on OR and primary vs secondary sources:
Our article is not "original research" in the relevant sense that would make it inappropriate for Wikipedia. We do not *do* original research ourselves, because we are not a peer-reviewed academic journal or anything of the sort. The fact that Aetherometry is *itself* original research does not imply that we can't have an article *about* it.
The fact that this is a not widely held theory is made clear in the article. The theory is not presented with the same weight as Special relativity etc. It seems to provide a fairly neutral view. It can be improved more - but that also isn't grounds for removal.
I would not have added it. But it has been added, and survived one AFD vote. To be removed at this stage, the grounds for removal should be very clear. And I'm sorry but they are not to me.
Well, the AfD went through. I guess I'm relieved. But I haven't decided if I still want to edit at Wikipedia. What kinds of things will you be working on? Pgio 09:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. The AFD/DRV debate about Aetherometry inspired me to try and hack together some proposed guidelines about fringe theories. I saw you were an active and thoughtful participant in that debate, and thought I would solicit your comments and hopefully suggestions and edits. At the moment the page is at WP:FRINGE for lack of a better name. Thanks for your time if you can lend any. -- Fastfission 17:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Januszkarp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Vsmith 17:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Really, whatever the outcome on Aetherometry, all the best with your wheelchair work. That looks like fascinating engineering. Pgio 07:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC) And sorry if you're not THAT Karpinski. Pgio 07:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, TTLightningRod. I am responding here because this is also for Pgio. I would like to make clear so that you are not disappointed, that I am not proponent of aetherometry, although I am also not opponent of aetherometry. It is too complex to form judgement without much work and I dont have reason to wish to spend time on it. What gives me pain is connected with my son, who has 9 years and makes much use of internet. Naturally he goes to Wikipedia to learn. I make a lot of effort to teach my son values such as scientific method, open mind, not prejudice, standing away from own bias, clarity, refusing to make judgement without full knowledge. It is difficult because we all see so much quick judgement and bias in our surrounds, and so little examples for child of distance from own prejudices. But then my son goes to Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, to learn, and what he learns there? He learns a lot of things, but sadly he also learns, too many times, bias, prejudice, and hopping into judgement. And the problem is bigger than when he sees it in his surrounds, because here it is presented with authority, as being OK in an encyclopedia. And even worse, it is being presented as scientific. I think this is very bad, and I am not the only person who thinks this. With friends we have a kind of home-schooling scientific group for our children and this is problem for all of us, not that Wikipedia has some false information, because facts are easy to correct, but that it teaches wrong values and wrong behaviour as if it was OK for a scientist. It it very disturbing. We do not want to forbid our children from using Wikipedia, we want them to explore freely, but it is possible that we have no choice, because this kind of behaviour, where for example things are claimed as scientific judgement in Wikipedia by administrators without proper verification just to hurt someone or something, or because administrators who like the claim are a large group, is not example that we want to be followed by our children.
You mention another Karpinski and if I understand you correctly it is a woman. I am sorry, but I dont know who you mean. Can you explain? In Poland, a woman would be called "Karpinska" instead of 'Karpinski". For example my wife is Katarzyna Karpinska. But I know in U.S.A. names of many women of polish origin end with "ski". Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 22:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, TTLightningRod. Telling truth, I dont have objection to my son seeing harsh or even insulting words, so there is not need for your apology. I think harsh words and insults have place, and children need to know right words and right place for words. Harsh words are on surface and it is not so difficult to teach wanting to learn child what such words mean and when is proper to use them. Much more difficult is to teach child to recognize hypocrisy, prejudice hidden under surface and dressed up untruth. Hypocrisy is way of being and gets into blood. It is like poison that child drinks without knowing. Look, now I start to speak like some stern moralist of XVIII century. I am traveling in time these days.
I forgot name of Brigadier General was Karpinski! Thank you for reminding me. I am glad I am not THAT Karpinski, it must not be easy fate. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 19:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
You asked more about why I voted Keep for the article on aetherometry. I read carefully through 5 rules, 15 rules, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NOT among others and could not see a particular basis for delete. Whether true or not, this supposed letter from Jimbo to the Aetherometry folks describes my view on OR and primary vs secondary sources:
Our article is not "original research" in the relevant sense that would make it inappropriate for Wikipedia. We do not *do* original research ourselves, because we are not a peer-reviewed academic journal or anything of the sort. The fact that Aetherometry is *itself* original research does not imply that we can't have an article *about* it.
The fact that this is a not widely held theory is made clear in the article. The theory is not presented with the same weight as Special relativity etc. It seems to provide a fairly neutral view. It can be improved more - but that also isn't grounds for removal.
I would not have added it. But it has been added, and survived one AFD vote. To be removed at this stage, the grounds for removal should be very clear. And I'm sorry but they are not to me.
Well, the AfD went through. I guess I'm relieved. But I haven't decided if I still want to edit at Wikipedia. What kinds of things will you be working on? Pgio 09:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. The AFD/DRV debate about Aetherometry inspired me to try and hack together some proposed guidelines about fringe theories. I saw you were an active and thoughtful participant in that debate, and thought I would solicit your comments and hopefully suggestions and edits. At the moment the page is at WP:FRINGE for lack of a better name. Thanks for your time if you can lend any. -- Fastfission 17:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)