![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Are you interested in practicing Taoism or merely interested in Taoism? Just totally curious...-- 达伟 ( talk) 15:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
if it becomes an issue, I'm sure some enterprising person will create a "driving burqua" with appropriate modifications, -- Ludwigs2 01:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
That was VERY funny! DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 03:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
And you're the first person I'd consider. Re for details. Has potential to be frustrating and large, however. Xavexgoem ( talk) 07:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 01:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
I dont edit on Wikipedia often, but astonished to see there is no one moderating the Moses page. Hadn't looked at the article for over a month, and the original research content that was removed as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moses as symbol in American history was delete, not merge..... (which you partook in)... and the user Wikiwatcher1 put back in! Does no one mod these pages? I tried to delete the said removed material but the Cluebot auto reverted (obviously when a clunk of material is removed the bot can go faulty)... a more established user who knows how to overcome the fault with the automatic bot can remove the previously removed content. Cheers Ludwigs. AussieGreen&Gold ( talk) 22:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok thanks. AussieGreen&Gold ( talk) 23:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I think this article was created prematurely as it has so little content it could get speedily deleted. To prevent this, I have moved it into your user space. It is now here: User:Ludwigs2/Macintosh startup behaviors. You can edit it at your leisure without worrying about it being deleted and then move it back to being an article once it is ready. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 22:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I've attempted to provide an FUR for this image, you might want to check it and see if anything got lost in the process... Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 15:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought I'd share with you what I almost posted at the arbitration. I didn't as I expected there would be some who would not see the humor and interpret it as a veiled threat to be disruptive.
Best,
PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►
TALK
21:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci ( talk) 20:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
In response, arbitration is not the same as mediation where a party may withdraw at any time. It is certainly your right to not participate in the proceedings anymore, but striking your name as you did is not acceptable as is making commentary with the strike on the case page. To do this, you will need the consent of the committee (I suggest via email to the mailing list). - MBK 004 15:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
You may not consider this a satisfactory response to your comments, but, for what it is worth, I think that in general Wikipedians should be discouraged from doing any research on the WWW. The web has some great resources - many important works of original scholarship areavailable on-line in a way they are not in paper. BUT I see more and more wikipedians who think research is going to Google scholar and using whatever snippets they find - in short, taking information out of context, so it is impossible to assess the real meaning of the quote. Or people just crib from other online encyclopedias. WP then just becomes a systematic compendium of what is already available to everyone online. I wish we could revise some policies to address this and to encourage people to do research in libraries.
But, be that as it may, most Wikipedians view this project as the culmination of a wide range of work across the www and many wikipedians continue discussions here elsewhere on-line. Obviously, my own view is that anything that happens online is "public" so I agree with all those who concluded this was not outing (now, had Mathsci investigated IP addresses and cross-referenced one account operating under one name, with another account operating under another name, well, there I would find it hard to defend him). But this is not why I came here, we can agree to disagree on this.
I just want to voice an even larger point that Wikipedians do too much of ALL of their research on-line to begin wtih. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to post without us having at least some sort of mini-consensus. See what you think of the following. I'd suggest this as a third paragraph added to the introduction.
Speaking personally, I used to say, "What did I do before the Internet?" Now I've refined that to, "What did I do before abebooks?" :-) I'm sure this can be word-smithed to something more succinct.
PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►
TALK
03:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
P.S. My main sources for books are abebooks, Alibris, and Ebay.
PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►
TALK
03:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Exclusive use of electronic media available over the internet is not 'best practice'. While such sources may be reliable in a strict sense, the material available on the web usually suffers from selection bias: many of the best sources are not freely available, and many of the available sources are hosted by individuals or groups who choose them in order to advance a position. Care must be taken to ensure that web-derived sources are not being presented with undue weight by by the websites that present them, and if individual quotes or summaries of reliable sources are offered by websites they must be verified against the originals to ensure that they have not been taken out of context or otherwise misrepresented. The more contested a point is among wikipedia editors, the less useful web sources become: in such cases editors should read and quote original scholarly material to the extent possible, so that there are no intervening third parties who might change the meaning of the work.
Exclusive use of electronic media available over the internet is not "best practice." While such sources may be reliable in a strict sense, material available on the web usually suffers from selection bias: many of the best sources are not freely available; moreover, free sources are often hosted by advocates who choose them in order to advance their position. Care must be taken to ensure that web-derived sources are not given undue weight by the presenting website—and if individual quotes or summaries of reliable sources are offered by a website, they must be verified against the originals to ensure that they have not been taken out of context or otherwise misrepresented. The more contested a point is among Wikipedia editors, the less useful web sources become: in such cases editors should read and quote original scholarly material to the extent possible, so that there are no intervening third parties who might change the meaning of the work.
(We can continue commenting above) Back to the original point, committing to read an entire book isn't just about subsequently representing it fairly and accurately, it's also about spending time absorbing and thinking about a topic, and away from the computer and its distractions. Too often editors find an online source that matches their personal prejudices and they're off to the races. That's why at least half the articles on WP these days seem to be a conglomerate of spot quotes and not real writing. Has anyone written any Wiki essays on the benefit of books? As an aside I can't tell from reviews of Ereaders if people feel more like it's a book reading experience or computer screen reading experience. I've got a Kindle reader on my PC and it doesn't do anything to enhance absorbing material. I think it's part of the same problem I have (and have confirmed with numerous others) that somehow you don't notice things on a computer screen which, however, are immediately and glaringly obvious when you print the same content out on paper.
PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►
TALK
03:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
|
Project news
|
|
New articles
|
Featured article
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Mono at 01:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC).
Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Goethean -- since you are a editor at Ramakrishna and had participated in similar discussion before. -- TheMandarin ( talk) 04:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
On the meditation about Israel? Thanks?-- Mbz1 ( talk) 21:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy is starting to lose its resemblance to a mediation. The absence of the mediator is possibly not helping. ;) Ryan Paddy ( talk) 01:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ludwigs... in the intersts of transparency, I feel obligated to alert you of this section I started at user talk:Shell Kinney. EdChem ( talk) 06:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the rest of your comments, I am really disappointed to learn you see me as a partisan opponent. I have no horse in the R&I race; my interest in the case arose in part from Mathsci's actions (which the evidence does show warrant censure) and Coren's draft being such a content ruling. Yes, I was unimpressed with your comments on the talk page, but bad news: that opinion was formed in response to your postings. I have no "buds" that determine my opinions. As far as RfA goes, I rarely vote. If I were to vote on your candidacy I would have to consider carefully my view. The fact that you view the Israel / Palestine issues as being so readily solvable seems to me to be somewhere between incredibly and foolishly optimistic - and I would guess your optimisim could easily be a topic for RfA questions. You wouldn't need to do any deal with me to run, and frankly I object to deals being done to influence the outcomes of RfAs. In short, I suggest that your view of me is much more a reflection of your preconceptions than it is a reflection my actions. EdChem ( talk) 09:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
here NickCT ( talk) 21:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I’m cross-posting this to Varoon Arya, DJ, and Ludwigs2 because I think the outcome of this case is something all three of you ought to know about. The case hasn’t officially been closed yet, but it’s pretty clear by this point what the outcome is going to be.
Mathsci is getting topic banned. That’s the most important piece of news for me to mention, because all three of you have said that the reason you stopped participating in the race and intelligence article is because you couldn’t tolerate his behavior. ArbCom is also authorizing discretionary sanctions for both POV-pushing and incivility, so hopefully there will also be a lot fewer problem with these things from editors other than Mathsci.
The other important piece of news is that David.Kane and I are also going to be topic banned. As for Mikemikev, he was indef-blocked for making personal attacks before the case was even finished. I suspect that he got himself blocked intentionally, because the arbitrators were already voting in favor of a site-ban for him, and he probably wanted to get in a last few digs at his opposition once he knew that he had nothing to lose from it.
The reason I think this should matter to all of you is because without me, David.Kane or Mikemikev, almost all of the most active users involved in this article are people like Ramdrake, Slrubenstein and Muntuwandi who regard the hereditarian hypothesis as a “fringe” theory. Even in the presence of discretionary sanctions, and even if they aren’t going to engage in deliberate POV-pushing, I’m concerned that with this balance of editors the article will still end up being slanted in favor of that perspective. It isn’t always possible for people to recognize POV wording when there’s nobody with an opposing point of view to point it out, but on the other hand I have a lot of confidence in all three of your ability to recognize and remove slanted wording. I think this makes your involvement in the articles a lot more important now than it’s been in the past, and with Mathsci topic-banned as well as discretionary sanctions, the thing that’s been preventing your involvement there has been removed now.
I’m a little envious of you guys. You’re going to have the opportunity to experience an editing atmosphere on these articles that’s devoid of Mathsci’s personal attacks, which is not an opportunity that I’ve ever had. I hope you can appreciate how valuable that opportunity is, and make the most of it. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 05:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
"kindly get your heads out of whatever orifice you have them stuck in" is unacceptable language under any circumstances. Please redact that. Jayjg (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
(Maybe you missed my reply to what you wrote there, so I copied it here, in the hope that it's good for a laugh ;-))
I hope you don't mind that I added your signature to this list. Regular doesn't mean frequent on a daily basis, nor does it mean with a fixed pattern (in other words, it doesn't mean regular). It just means editors who, time and again, help out at the desks. If you object to being on that list, revert immediately, of course. --- Sluzzelin talk 21:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for writing this. Please see my response to your point, be sure to read
this
Regards
Jon Ascton
(talk)
22:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
NW ( Talk) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I've invited a number of people to join at this thread, so thank you for looking. I'd like to develop something similar to wp:AWB, except PHP based (frankly, I'm starting this because I'm annoyed that there's no version of AWB that works on Macs). My idea is to create a separate user (much like a bot-account): people can navigate to that user's page, where they will find an assortment of HTML forms where they can perform AWB-like functions straight through wikipedia's servers. My problem is the learning curve - the PHP coding is not beyond me technically, but the project is too large for me to handle on my own, given my current informational deficit. I've contacted you (as a group) because you have worked on or developed PHP bot code, and will probably be much more 'up' on this problem than I am. what I need to know is the following:
I'd also like to know if any of you are interested in collaborating on this project - that would make things a hell of a lot easier for me, and make development much faster. Please let me know. -- Ludwigs2 06:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
See my recent addition of yours. You might like to reformat your name and/or rename the law. Peter jackson ( talk) 15:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for accepting my edit of SF Chinatown's correct establishment date of c.1840s. Why is it always so hard to accep such changes on Wikipedia, even when very reliable sources and detailed explanations are given? Regards, MM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.115.155.107 ( talk) 19:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. In fringe talk you were uncertain what pronoun to use for Verbal. In the edit war that brought me to that page I guessed she (based on a talk page comment about taking time out to have a baby) and he rather tartly corrected us. Bn ( talk) 21:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Just thought you should be aware of this discussion in which you were mentioned. Cheers! -- Scray ( talk) 15:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I removed your latest post to the RD talk page. We're not going to get into battles like that. I'll protect the page if I have to. Please keep your comments civil, no matter what the provocation. Regards. Franamax ( talk) 22:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Since you have made so many edits to WP:AN/I, would you like me to nominate you for adminship? -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again!!! Wolfnix • Talk • 16:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Wolfnix • Talk • 16:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I know you ideologically disagree with WP:FRINGE, but I think you and I agree on the principles I outline here: Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#Notability_by_collection. Or maybe not. Anyway, having your input would be appreciated.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, the template you improved greatly has a newly discovered issue, non-hex value input. Maybe you can take a look. - DePiep ( talk) 12:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Please could you look at WP:VPP#Arguments to avoid and Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just for deletion?. Simply south ( talk) 00:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I see you closed "No Kings" thread. Maybe you are right. Can you please make a closing remark where you write "..it's mere chitchat.." that in India, where OP is located, Native Indians are normally called Red Indians. This is necessary as one user suspects malice in usage of the term. Jon Ascton (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Ludwig, thanks for coming in an helping out with a look at Kundalini Yoga!!
Can you please please please explain to gatoclass that he cannot just make stuff up as a basis for his constant reversions??? He has never once contributed to this article, and I have no clue what-so-ever as to where he gets this information he claims to use as a reason for undoing my updates.
I am totally open to making this article better, but gatoclass is just such a HUGE hindrance at every level of this page. Please keep helping!! I had to re-do his undo again today, and it's just not helping to always have to go back to some historic version from months ago just because what is up there doesn't line up with this guys totally fictional world. RogerThatOne72 ( talk) 19:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ludwigs2. I really had no idea that I'd been mountainizing molehills lately. I was all for getting to the bottom of and closing the discussion around Jon's imprecisely worded "No Kings" question. (I said things like "I really see no reason at all for the amount of disagreement in this thread" and "Aye gods it just goes on and on. <sigh>" -- and that one even ran onto my talk page before getting resolved!). So I wasn't too sure what you meant, actually. And I know I am new to the RD, which is a bit different than the rest of WP in a lot of ways, so I still do not have a reliable sense of how things work best there. Attempts I have made on the RD talk page to understand better the workings of things there have so far seemed to come to a satisfactory close before too long. But I do not want by any means to be at serious odds with you at all, Ludwigs2, so if I become bothersome in some way which I may not be aware of there, please certainly let me know! Regards :), WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I agree with you on the principles, but you are also repeating as fact some stuff that is a bit off, and this same (or similar) background opinion has colored the interactions of many editors on this. Rather than take up space on WP:RSN, I'll answer you here on that, and cite this there for anyone interested. I hope this is okay with you. To respond to impressions such as yours can take a lot of words; I apologize for the length. You have no obligation to reply or even to read this. It's just in case you are interested to see if you are holding some misconceptions. Feel free to ask questions of me, here or on my Talk page, I can source any assertions I make, if needed. If I've written too much and you'd like me to summarize, I'll do that, too. I just don't have time to do it tonight.
Changing the temperature at which fusion occurs would be a major scientific advancement, if possible, and no scientist would sneer at the idea if someone managed to do it.
The problematical aspects of the cold fusion debate occurred because a couple of scientists (whose names I forget) jumped to publication before they had all their facts in line, and then a whole bunch of 'popular press' and 'conspiracy theory' types jumped on the (unwittingly flawed) research.
A scientist who can get an article published in a peer-reviewed journal is not dismissible simply because he's working in a topic area that has suffered setbacks. Scientists are constantly revisiting outmoded ideas to see if there's anything of value that new technology and methods can dig out of them. This is a normal part of the scientific process, and the fact that a team of other scientists reviewed the article and didn't find it wanting is sufficient indication that the research is acceptable scientific research.
wp:Fringe only enters into this debate to keep Wikipedia editors from using that (perfectly reliable) scientific article to make claims about the topic or the state of the discipline that the article in no way can or would support. One article does not mean a revival of the concept, but just that there's still some scientific interest in the idea. It's just a matter of balance: does this article add anything of significance to the discussion without unduly skewing the perception of the topic?
Thanks again for your comment. -- Abd ( talk) 02:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Are you interested in practicing Taoism or merely interested in Taoism? Just totally curious...-- 达伟 ( talk) 15:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
if it becomes an issue, I'm sure some enterprising person will create a "driving burqua" with appropriate modifications, -- Ludwigs2 01:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
That was VERY funny! DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 03:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
And you're the first person I'd consider. Re for details. Has potential to be frustrating and large, however. Xavexgoem ( talk) 07:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 01:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
I dont edit on Wikipedia often, but astonished to see there is no one moderating the Moses page. Hadn't looked at the article for over a month, and the original research content that was removed as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moses as symbol in American history was delete, not merge..... (which you partook in)... and the user Wikiwatcher1 put back in! Does no one mod these pages? I tried to delete the said removed material but the Cluebot auto reverted (obviously when a clunk of material is removed the bot can go faulty)... a more established user who knows how to overcome the fault with the automatic bot can remove the previously removed content. Cheers Ludwigs. AussieGreen&Gold ( talk) 22:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok thanks. AussieGreen&Gold ( talk) 23:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I think this article was created prematurely as it has so little content it could get speedily deleted. To prevent this, I have moved it into your user space. It is now here: User:Ludwigs2/Macintosh startup behaviors. You can edit it at your leisure without worrying about it being deleted and then move it back to being an article once it is ready. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 22:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I've attempted to provide an FUR for this image, you might want to check it and see if anything got lost in the process... Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 15:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought I'd share with you what I almost posted at the arbitration. I didn't as I expected there would be some who would not see the humor and interpret it as a veiled threat to be disruptive.
Best,
PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►
TALK
21:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci ( talk) 20:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
In response, arbitration is not the same as mediation where a party may withdraw at any time. It is certainly your right to not participate in the proceedings anymore, but striking your name as you did is not acceptable as is making commentary with the strike on the case page. To do this, you will need the consent of the committee (I suggest via email to the mailing list). - MBK 004 15:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
You may not consider this a satisfactory response to your comments, but, for what it is worth, I think that in general Wikipedians should be discouraged from doing any research on the WWW. The web has some great resources - many important works of original scholarship areavailable on-line in a way they are not in paper. BUT I see more and more wikipedians who think research is going to Google scholar and using whatever snippets they find - in short, taking information out of context, so it is impossible to assess the real meaning of the quote. Or people just crib from other online encyclopedias. WP then just becomes a systematic compendium of what is already available to everyone online. I wish we could revise some policies to address this and to encourage people to do research in libraries.
But, be that as it may, most Wikipedians view this project as the culmination of a wide range of work across the www and many wikipedians continue discussions here elsewhere on-line. Obviously, my own view is that anything that happens online is "public" so I agree with all those who concluded this was not outing (now, had Mathsci investigated IP addresses and cross-referenced one account operating under one name, with another account operating under another name, well, there I would find it hard to defend him). But this is not why I came here, we can agree to disagree on this.
I just want to voice an even larger point that Wikipedians do too much of ALL of their research on-line to begin wtih. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to post without us having at least some sort of mini-consensus. See what you think of the following. I'd suggest this as a third paragraph added to the introduction.
Speaking personally, I used to say, "What did I do before the Internet?" Now I've refined that to, "What did I do before abebooks?" :-) I'm sure this can be word-smithed to something more succinct.
PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►
TALK
03:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
P.S. My main sources for books are abebooks, Alibris, and Ebay.
PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►
TALK
03:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Exclusive use of electronic media available over the internet is not 'best practice'. While such sources may be reliable in a strict sense, the material available on the web usually suffers from selection bias: many of the best sources are not freely available, and many of the available sources are hosted by individuals or groups who choose them in order to advance a position. Care must be taken to ensure that web-derived sources are not being presented with undue weight by by the websites that present them, and if individual quotes or summaries of reliable sources are offered by websites they must be verified against the originals to ensure that they have not been taken out of context or otherwise misrepresented. The more contested a point is among wikipedia editors, the less useful web sources become: in such cases editors should read and quote original scholarly material to the extent possible, so that there are no intervening third parties who might change the meaning of the work.
Exclusive use of electronic media available over the internet is not "best practice." While such sources may be reliable in a strict sense, material available on the web usually suffers from selection bias: many of the best sources are not freely available; moreover, free sources are often hosted by advocates who choose them in order to advance their position. Care must be taken to ensure that web-derived sources are not given undue weight by the presenting website—and if individual quotes or summaries of reliable sources are offered by a website, they must be verified against the originals to ensure that they have not been taken out of context or otherwise misrepresented. The more contested a point is among Wikipedia editors, the less useful web sources become: in such cases editors should read and quote original scholarly material to the extent possible, so that there are no intervening third parties who might change the meaning of the work.
(We can continue commenting above) Back to the original point, committing to read an entire book isn't just about subsequently representing it fairly and accurately, it's also about spending time absorbing and thinking about a topic, and away from the computer and its distractions. Too often editors find an online source that matches their personal prejudices and they're off to the races. That's why at least half the articles on WP these days seem to be a conglomerate of spot quotes and not real writing. Has anyone written any Wiki essays on the benefit of books? As an aside I can't tell from reviews of Ereaders if people feel more like it's a book reading experience or computer screen reading experience. I've got a Kindle reader on my PC and it doesn't do anything to enhance absorbing material. I think it's part of the same problem I have (and have confirmed with numerous others) that somehow you don't notice things on a computer screen which, however, are immediately and glaringly obvious when you print the same content out on paper.
PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►
TALK
03:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
|
Project news
|
|
New articles
|
Featured article
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Mono at 01:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC).
Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Goethean -- since you are a editor at Ramakrishna and had participated in similar discussion before. -- TheMandarin ( talk) 04:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
On the meditation about Israel? Thanks?-- Mbz1 ( talk) 21:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy is starting to lose its resemblance to a mediation. The absence of the mediator is possibly not helping. ;) Ryan Paddy ( talk) 01:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ludwigs... in the intersts of transparency, I feel obligated to alert you of this section I started at user talk:Shell Kinney. EdChem ( talk) 06:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the rest of your comments, I am really disappointed to learn you see me as a partisan opponent. I have no horse in the R&I race; my interest in the case arose in part from Mathsci's actions (which the evidence does show warrant censure) and Coren's draft being such a content ruling. Yes, I was unimpressed with your comments on the talk page, but bad news: that opinion was formed in response to your postings. I have no "buds" that determine my opinions. As far as RfA goes, I rarely vote. If I were to vote on your candidacy I would have to consider carefully my view. The fact that you view the Israel / Palestine issues as being so readily solvable seems to me to be somewhere between incredibly and foolishly optimistic - and I would guess your optimisim could easily be a topic for RfA questions. You wouldn't need to do any deal with me to run, and frankly I object to deals being done to influence the outcomes of RfAs. In short, I suggest that your view of me is much more a reflection of your preconceptions than it is a reflection my actions. EdChem ( talk) 09:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
here NickCT ( talk) 21:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I’m cross-posting this to Varoon Arya, DJ, and Ludwigs2 because I think the outcome of this case is something all three of you ought to know about. The case hasn’t officially been closed yet, but it’s pretty clear by this point what the outcome is going to be.
Mathsci is getting topic banned. That’s the most important piece of news for me to mention, because all three of you have said that the reason you stopped participating in the race and intelligence article is because you couldn’t tolerate his behavior. ArbCom is also authorizing discretionary sanctions for both POV-pushing and incivility, so hopefully there will also be a lot fewer problem with these things from editors other than Mathsci.
The other important piece of news is that David.Kane and I are also going to be topic banned. As for Mikemikev, he was indef-blocked for making personal attacks before the case was even finished. I suspect that he got himself blocked intentionally, because the arbitrators were already voting in favor of a site-ban for him, and he probably wanted to get in a last few digs at his opposition once he knew that he had nothing to lose from it.
The reason I think this should matter to all of you is because without me, David.Kane or Mikemikev, almost all of the most active users involved in this article are people like Ramdrake, Slrubenstein and Muntuwandi who regard the hereditarian hypothesis as a “fringe” theory. Even in the presence of discretionary sanctions, and even if they aren’t going to engage in deliberate POV-pushing, I’m concerned that with this balance of editors the article will still end up being slanted in favor of that perspective. It isn’t always possible for people to recognize POV wording when there’s nobody with an opposing point of view to point it out, but on the other hand I have a lot of confidence in all three of your ability to recognize and remove slanted wording. I think this makes your involvement in the articles a lot more important now than it’s been in the past, and with Mathsci topic-banned as well as discretionary sanctions, the thing that’s been preventing your involvement there has been removed now.
I’m a little envious of you guys. You’re going to have the opportunity to experience an editing atmosphere on these articles that’s devoid of Mathsci’s personal attacks, which is not an opportunity that I’ve ever had. I hope you can appreciate how valuable that opportunity is, and make the most of it. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 05:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
"kindly get your heads out of whatever orifice you have them stuck in" is unacceptable language under any circumstances. Please redact that. Jayjg (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
(Maybe you missed my reply to what you wrote there, so I copied it here, in the hope that it's good for a laugh ;-))
I hope you don't mind that I added your signature to this list. Regular doesn't mean frequent on a daily basis, nor does it mean with a fixed pattern (in other words, it doesn't mean regular). It just means editors who, time and again, help out at the desks. If you object to being on that list, revert immediately, of course. --- Sluzzelin talk 21:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for writing this. Please see my response to your point, be sure to read
this
Regards
Jon Ascton
(talk)
22:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
NW ( Talk) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I've invited a number of people to join at this thread, so thank you for looking. I'd like to develop something similar to wp:AWB, except PHP based (frankly, I'm starting this because I'm annoyed that there's no version of AWB that works on Macs). My idea is to create a separate user (much like a bot-account): people can navigate to that user's page, where they will find an assortment of HTML forms where they can perform AWB-like functions straight through wikipedia's servers. My problem is the learning curve - the PHP coding is not beyond me technically, but the project is too large for me to handle on my own, given my current informational deficit. I've contacted you (as a group) because you have worked on or developed PHP bot code, and will probably be much more 'up' on this problem than I am. what I need to know is the following:
I'd also like to know if any of you are interested in collaborating on this project - that would make things a hell of a lot easier for me, and make development much faster. Please let me know. -- Ludwigs2 06:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
See my recent addition of yours. You might like to reformat your name and/or rename the law. Peter jackson ( talk) 15:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for accepting my edit of SF Chinatown's correct establishment date of c.1840s. Why is it always so hard to accep such changes on Wikipedia, even when very reliable sources and detailed explanations are given? Regards, MM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.115.155.107 ( talk) 19:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. In fringe talk you were uncertain what pronoun to use for Verbal. In the edit war that brought me to that page I guessed she (based on a talk page comment about taking time out to have a baby) and he rather tartly corrected us. Bn ( talk) 21:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Just thought you should be aware of this discussion in which you were mentioned. Cheers! -- Scray ( talk) 15:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I removed your latest post to the RD talk page. We're not going to get into battles like that. I'll protect the page if I have to. Please keep your comments civil, no matter what the provocation. Regards. Franamax ( talk) 22:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Since you have made so many edits to WP:AN/I, would you like me to nominate you for adminship? -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again!!! Wolfnix • Talk • 16:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Wolfnix • Talk • 16:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I know you ideologically disagree with WP:FRINGE, but I think you and I agree on the principles I outline here: Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#Notability_by_collection. Or maybe not. Anyway, having your input would be appreciated.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, the template you improved greatly has a newly discovered issue, non-hex value input. Maybe you can take a look. - DePiep ( talk) 12:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Please could you look at WP:VPP#Arguments to avoid and Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just for deletion?. Simply south ( talk) 00:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I see you closed "No Kings" thread. Maybe you are right. Can you please make a closing remark where you write "..it's mere chitchat.." that in India, where OP is located, Native Indians are normally called Red Indians. This is necessary as one user suspects malice in usage of the term. Jon Ascton (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Ludwig, thanks for coming in an helping out with a look at Kundalini Yoga!!
Can you please please please explain to gatoclass that he cannot just make stuff up as a basis for his constant reversions??? He has never once contributed to this article, and I have no clue what-so-ever as to where he gets this information he claims to use as a reason for undoing my updates.
I am totally open to making this article better, but gatoclass is just such a HUGE hindrance at every level of this page. Please keep helping!! I had to re-do his undo again today, and it's just not helping to always have to go back to some historic version from months ago just because what is up there doesn't line up with this guys totally fictional world. RogerThatOne72 ( talk) 19:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ludwigs2. I really had no idea that I'd been mountainizing molehills lately. I was all for getting to the bottom of and closing the discussion around Jon's imprecisely worded "No Kings" question. (I said things like "I really see no reason at all for the amount of disagreement in this thread" and "Aye gods it just goes on and on. <sigh>" -- and that one even ran onto my talk page before getting resolved!). So I wasn't too sure what you meant, actually. And I know I am new to the RD, which is a bit different than the rest of WP in a lot of ways, so I still do not have a reliable sense of how things work best there. Attempts I have made on the RD talk page to understand better the workings of things there have so far seemed to come to a satisfactory close before too long. But I do not want by any means to be at serious odds with you at all, Ludwigs2, so if I become bothersome in some way which I may not be aware of there, please certainly let me know! Regards :), WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I agree with you on the principles, but you are also repeating as fact some stuff that is a bit off, and this same (or similar) background opinion has colored the interactions of many editors on this. Rather than take up space on WP:RSN, I'll answer you here on that, and cite this there for anyone interested. I hope this is okay with you. To respond to impressions such as yours can take a lot of words; I apologize for the length. You have no obligation to reply or even to read this. It's just in case you are interested to see if you are holding some misconceptions. Feel free to ask questions of me, here or on my Talk page, I can source any assertions I make, if needed. If I've written too much and you'd like me to summarize, I'll do that, too. I just don't have time to do it tonight.
Changing the temperature at which fusion occurs would be a major scientific advancement, if possible, and no scientist would sneer at the idea if someone managed to do it.
The problematical aspects of the cold fusion debate occurred because a couple of scientists (whose names I forget) jumped to publication before they had all their facts in line, and then a whole bunch of 'popular press' and 'conspiracy theory' types jumped on the (unwittingly flawed) research.
A scientist who can get an article published in a peer-reviewed journal is not dismissible simply because he's working in a topic area that has suffered setbacks. Scientists are constantly revisiting outmoded ideas to see if there's anything of value that new technology and methods can dig out of them. This is a normal part of the scientific process, and the fact that a team of other scientists reviewed the article and didn't find it wanting is sufficient indication that the research is acceptable scientific research.
wp:Fringe only enters into this debate to keep Wikipedia editors from using that (perfectly reliable) scientific article to make claims about the topic or the state of the discipline that the article in no way can or would support. One article does not mean a revival of the concept, but just that there's still some scientific interest in the idea. It's just a matter of balance: does this article add anything of significance to the discussion without unduly skewing the perception of the topic?
Thanks again for your comment. -- Abd ( talk) 02:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)