FWIW, I think the discussions in this section may address some of the things you mentioned on my talk page. Or not :) - Dank ( push to talk) 16:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
One of the best suggestions you made was early on, when you proposed that like-minded editors (e.g., those historically opposed to PC) get together and try to hammer out something they'd find acceptable, then bring that to the table. I think that might have made a difference, but I couldn't figure out how to engineer it without opening myself up to accusations of canvassing. For similar reasons, I've been reluctant to begin conversations with editors away from the PC2012 pages even when I think a one-on-one discussion might be beneficial to finding common ground and moving the process along. And when I do bother to try that approach, I'm met either with an oblique response or no response at all. Chess analogies aside, the whole endeavor seems very much like feeling one's way through unfamiliar territory on a moonless night with nothing but a glow stick and an intermittent flashlight. If I make the wrong move, will I foil someone's carefully laid (and entirely benevolent) plan? lose my own credibility? screw everything up and piss everyone off? Maybe I would do better just to abandon the whole thing and go find a quiet corner and play wikignome. Problem is, I know damn well that PC is going to eventually find me wherever I go, and if it's anything like the provisional policy I'm not going to like it when it does. Rivertorch ( talk) 21:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, WP:PC2012/RfC 1 can look scary, because the statements are short and don't have a lot of depth, which is typical for RfCs. But WT:PC2012 by itself wasn't getting the job done, we weren't getting the spectrum of opinions we needed to be able to put together RfCs that will attempt to address all the concerns the voters are likely to have. The only "strategy" I see here is basic social skills:
Why do you engage in censorship while referrimg to my simple, logical and modest edit as vandalism? The issue has already been determined in theory- depictions of Muhammad are not to be censored because they are pictures of Muhammad. Yet what I found in the space which would normally show an image of the person written about is a stylized depiction of the word for Muhammad itself, in Arabic. Refer me to a page about any famous Englishman or American or Australian which, in place of that persons image, there appears that person's name in English - but written in flourished italics. That would be ludicrous and it is equally ludicrous for Muhammad's name to appear in that fashion. Kindly spare me the duty of reverting your reversion - or state your reasoning for reverting my edit and calling it vandalism. Your failure to provide any explanation does not seem in good faith to me. QuintBy ( talk) 08:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Good morning yourself. I realize that by the standard you apply to me, you are old around here. Thus I find it disappointing that tutelage you have offered me as a 'new' editor is not sufficiently explanatory of your own editing/reversion of Muhammad. What the big colorful message staring me in face told me was that the quasi-image of Muhammad that was in place when I arrived had not been discussed and thus warranted reversion. It was your reversion of my edit which was inconsistent with the message which stared you in the face as well. What your reversion did was return to view the very image on the page which had warranted removal in the first place, for violation of the 'colorful' rule requiring discussion of all images used. More to the point, in returning that image to view you did not yourself undertake to provide the requisite discussion that was missing when I arrived and is still missing as I write this. The fact of the matter is that when you arrived, my edit had been reverted/edited already. Following the letter of the colorful rule, neither the image of Muhammad represented in Arabic nor my own edit to include a visual depiction of Muhammad's visage were discussed in advance of being placed. So why would you follow the discussion rule as it pertained to the image I added, but not follow that same rule with regard to the image which you reverted back to, which also was not vetted through discussion on the colorful page? I am confused by your interpretation of what was staring us both in the face, and also puzzled that when you returned the image which I edited out because there was zero discussion regarding it, that you did not rectify that omission by inserting your own discussion in support of inclusion of the stylistic depiction of Muhammad. Belated is better than omitted. Please discuss (on the in-your-face page) why you think that an image which deliberately avoids depicting Muhammad's visage is consistent with the consensus that a depiction of Muhammad's visage is not to be censored. QuintBy ( talk) 18:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the substantive question of the image, it was all discussed ad nauseam during the RfC (linked above and now linked again for your convenience). If you want to know my opinion, go read the RfC and see how I !voted on the various questions. But my opinion, like your opinion, is really very much beside the point. The point is that consensus was reached, it may eventually change but not anytime soon, and everyone needs to accept it. Consensus is arguably the basis of everything we do on Wikipedia. My restoration of the consensus version of the article was grounded in policy. Such edits, made to enforce consensus, do not require any accompanying discussion; the discussion has already been had. Rivertorch ( talk) 22:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
& hey rivertouch, did you remember me from mango page!
I just realized that I made that careless edit. I'm glad you caught it. Thank you. Oh sheesh. Red faced here. LOL That was dumb on my part and I will be much more careful in the future. Marmenta ( talk) 07:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
You did the right thing. It was my fault when I archived the page without checking for unanswered edit requests and keeping them on the talk page. — Cupco 18:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing,
Lobster , has been proposed for a
merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going
here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
PeterWesco (
talk)
05:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
If you can't be bothered to even read an edit request, it would be better if you didn't just casually flip it off. It took me some time and effort to find the correct parameter, and I expected it to be fixed. 184.78.81.245 ( talk) 17:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
My name is Veysel Peru, you have commented to a writing of mine in the Talk_Quran section. I kindly want you to read my personal site http://www.VeyselicNumbers.com and return your comments on it.
Thank you very much.
Veyselperu ( talk) 08:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Veysel Peru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veyselperu ( talk • contribs) 06:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
(sorry if this is in the wrong place, I haven't used it before)
Although, I may have made a few grammatical errors in editing 'sewage treatment', shouldn't the subject matter of the section be confined to sewage treatment... or better wastewater treatment (since 'sewage' is somewhat deprecated in the field). I was trying to explain generalities of wwt as succinctly as possible. Perhaps I should have used a laptop instead of an ipad...
Tissue culture is not done at treatment plants. Although there are fixed film processes, the true wwt reactors are either anaerobic digesters or pure oxygen reactors: since they are closed to the atmosphere(is that not the implication of a bioreactor). I don't know whether aerators, trickling filters, or rotating biological contactors are truly bioreactors, since they are open to the atmosphere, but the are not tissue culture.
I operate pure oxygen reactors with a flow through of about 350MGD (think how many plants in the USA have that flow), the atmosphere is excluded to decrease nitrogen input. Although I have heard of mobile fixed film wwt plant in NZ that uses some kind of media called Kaldanes, generally wwt is activated sludge w/o media in reactors or aerators--probably to avoid problems with pump impellers and media/zooglia separation.
Should I have added references? Maybe, but in wwt, what I wrote is general knowledge just as the unreferenced tissue culture stuff is probably general knowledge. But, can we separate, into separate sections: WWT from academic Tissue Culture, Industrial Bioreactors, and especially Proprietary Bioreaction Processes?
Perhaps you could re-edit what I wrote to something more popularly intelligible--as you have seen my writing isn't the best. The Ken Kerri books from CSU Sacramento are the standard set of California texts for operator certification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.21.108 ( talk) 21:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:PC2012/RfC_2#Modification_to_BLP_question_response_section |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello. Because the "Yes" section was split between one group in favor of applying protection to all articles and one group in favor of applying protection to articles only when there has been a problem, I have split the section to reflect this difference. Please go back to that page and make sure that your vote is still in the section that most closely reflects your views. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
|
I hope you don't mind I took the talk-page RfC live with most of your proposed questions, along with a general area for people to raise any concerns they have with the proposed policy text that now lives on WP:PC. It's at WT:PC. Feel free to notify anyone else that you think might not be watching the page already. It's on CENT as well. Gigs ( talk) 20:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I've collapsed the RfC temporarily, and commented out the WP:CENT advertising. Feel free to add more questions to it and reopen it when you are ready. Gigs ( talk) 19:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for being responsive to my concerns. Stay safe. Rivertorch ( talk) 20:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
for your appropriate and well-timed application of WP:IAR recently -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 23:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC) |
RiverTorch, I am Jay Leno. Please quit reversing my changes... James.Douglas.Muir ( talk) 04:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Rivertorch, let's be clear here. We're in a bit of a pickle with time and politics and speech not playing out freely, as they should be, at the moment, and getting people's visibility on this subject matter is of the utmost concern. So what you're saying is you feel justified in limiting my freedom of speech, and not only that, you feel justified in limiting my freedom of speech and disallow me talking about myself?
So how does this sound, Since you've remained anonymous to me, send me your name and full contact information to my email address, at James.Douglas.Muir@gmail.com, or you can contact me at (818) 840-3223, or better yet, contact me on my web site, which you can do any google search and ask if I support these changes. Or better yet, how about you stop by my studios, and we can chat personally about this. I'd love to discuss how Wikipedia editors suddenly adopted fascism and are now disallowing us from editing information about ourselves....
I'm interested in knowing who has the audacity to feel I need to prove myself to them.. That takes balls, that's for sure, but I give you the opportunity to justify your actions.. Who knows, I may make it a segment on my show, Wikipedia could clearly use a humility check if this is who we have representing our information... — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.Douglas.Muir ( talk • contribs) 05:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
After reading many of things that I have read on your Talk Page, I just have to say that you have shown more patience than anyone I have ever encountered on or off of Wikipedia. It's almost like some people are just trying to get you to blow up and you just remain completely calm. (feel free to delete all this if you want, I just felt the need to mention this after your reaction to alot of the abuse people have thrown at you). King of Nothing ( talk) 06:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC) |
I've reviewed a lot of the successful and unsuccessful Requests for Adminship and I've reviewed a lot of your Contributions and I think you would be a lock to become an Administrator. If you would like someone to nominate you, I would be happy to do so (or if you'd like to nominate yourself I'd be happy to participate in the RfA). Let me know. As Always, With Thanks King of Nothing ( talk) 19:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
I know some of my actions frustrated you, but I'm glad we could work something out in the end. Gigs ( talk) 14:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC) |
BTW- GedUK added new comments to the not-yet-open RfC 3, despite the warnings at the top. Are we ready to just call it open? I think most of the recent participants in the RfC design process have weighed in at this point. Gigs ( talk) 14:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Was going to give you the barnstar of diplomacy, but i see someone beat me to it...So have a kitty for the great work on Talk:Homophobia. Thanks and have an amazing day!
ツ Jenova
20 (
email)
09:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia. Thank you. - Mr X 19:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Homophobia isn't a phobia, homophobes aren't scared... "they're just assholes" ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 20:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I'm concerned at the rejection of processes that the community as a whole has endorsed over the years. That's not going to end well, and any suggestions for smoother and fairer running of the thing gratefully accepted. Here, at least. -- Pete ( talk) 07:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Your page message made me laugh and with the recent drama at ANI you could probably do with a cuppa. Enjoy this and hurry back! ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 20:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC) |
MrX, you're most welcome to join the party. (Why does the phrase "tea party", even in lower case, give me a queasy feeling, I wonder?) Pull up a chair and make yourself comfortable. I have no wisdom to offer, just half-baked hypotheses like the one above, but the larder at Commons is full and I have credit there. Rivertorch ( talk) 06:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat ( talk) 11:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The LGBT Barnstar | |
Rivertorch, I see you doing consistent good work and putting up with some professional POV pushers. You hold your ground and act diplomatic even when provoked. Thank you for the good work you do. Keep it up. Cluetrainwoowoo ( talk) 04:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC) |
Rivertorch, thanks for your feedback on the Beethoven page! I would like to ask what you think might be the best way forward for our project with regard to Wikipedia integration. www.openclassical.com is itself a very large project, and my vision for it has always been to be an educational (and inspirational) resource on the web. I always thought it would link naturally from Wikipedia. So I find myself looking now at how to begin persuading the community here that it is a valid resource, and which fills a gap in the Wikipedia platform (an organized catalog of classical music) that cannot be found anywhere else on the Internet.
A large problem I see online, with regards to classical music, is that it is quite difficult to explore the works of the composers in a simple way, especially if you're not a trained musician. Current efforts tend to be huge lists (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Ludwig_van_Beethoven) that are not sortable / filterable, or what I would call user-friendly. To say nothing of movements, instrumentation, dedications, premiere performances, etc - features currently being built into openclassical. My goal is for a visitor to be able to quickly discover a composer's greatest works, and also hear them.
The thing that really excites me about our YouTube integration is that the quality of recordings (professional and amateur) tend to be surprisingly good. So good in fact that a visitor gets a great impression of the music. I understand the concern about possibly copyrighted material on YouTube, but I did not think it would be an objection to adding openclassical as an external link from Wikipedia. What do you think would be a reasonable way to address this? I believe the vast majority of movies we get from the YouTube api are fine, however openclassical itself cannot tell in any case. Is this really a concern for Wikipedia?
The second issue you mention is the reliability of our information. Interesting question, something I had not thought might be considered. Our team are doctoral level professional musicians, so again I would really like to ask your opinion about how you (and others) might expect this to be addressed? Maybe something like an 'our team' page? On the other hand, I would imagine that since each work we list tends to have YouTube movies and links to scores via IMSLP would prove the existence of the work in general?
Thanks! D clef ( talk) 01:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
To answer a couple of your specific questions, linking to possible copyright violations is definitely a concern for Wikipedia. (I think we go overboard on that concern sometimes, but then again I also think that copyright law has become utterly ludicrous in recent years, and we do need to stay on the good side of all laws—even ludicrous ones.) Yes, I definitely think an "our team" page would be a good thing. Whether such a page would be helpful in making your case for linking the site from Wikipedia articles, I'm not sure, but it couldn't hurt.
One other thing. From your comments, I take it you're affiliated with openclassical.com. At the moment, Wikipedia has a rather incoherent approach to addressing conflicts of interest. We do have a guideline that you probably should read, but it's hard to predict exactly how it will be applied in a given case.
I do appreciate your taking the time to discuss the matter. I think the web site in question is an interesting one, and whatever happens vis-à-vis Wikipedia, I wish you much success. Feel free to contact me again if you think I can be of any help. Rivertorch ( talk) 05:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes I am affiliated with openclassical.com, but as far as COI goes, I really don't think we're trying to assert a bias about which composer or music is better than others (quite the opposite actually); our mission is to collate the objective facts of classical music history and make them easy to discover.
As the site continues to improve hopefully the WP community will become persuaded of our educational focus, and value as an external link to WP visitors. I think a bit later on, when openclassical is more comprehensive, we'll begin a discussion on the external links noticeboard as you suggest.
I'll keep you posted as the site grows in the meantime, thanks again! D clef ( talk) 01:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry, not really yelling at you but it does come up at inopportune moments and can derail the discussion in a most spectacular way. With some caveats (traditional BrE usage, what I can easliy buy in a non-specialist supermarket etc) the muffin is basically a flattish bread product which although it does have a top and a bottom is pretty up-down symmetrical. Inside, it is just a type of bread, albeit delicious. The crumpet does not have up-down symmetry - the top and bottom are completely different. The bottom is a sealed flat surface and the top is covered in small holes, maybe about 2-3mm or so in diameter, which descend into the material. When you have toasted it, you butter the top surface and the butter melts into the holes. To turn it upside down at this point would be a catastrophe. The surfaces are waxier and a bit tougher than ordinary bread - to the touch there is something almost plasticky about them although that makes it sounds horrible, which they are not. Far from it. Please visit the UK and permit me to entertain you to tea - once you have experienced them there is no possibility of confusion. Oh, and if coming from the USA please bring a bag of AmE "English muffins" as (a) I like them and (b) it is a most useful comparison between them, BrE muffins, and crumpets, and all three are different! Hope this helps. Cheers DBaK ( talk) 08:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
A raisin muffin (or is it now a scone?) for you! |
Here in the UK muffins are cupcakes without icing, Crumpets are indeed as described by another of your stalkers (lovely when combined with baked beans), and the Muffin Man is an actual man. Enjoy =P ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 09:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC) |
Rivertorch ( talk) 11:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Lady Selina was continuing.
"Only place in London you can still get muffins. Real muffins. Do you know when I went to America last year they had something called muffins on the breakfast menu. Not real muffins at all. Kind of teacake with raisins in them. I mean, why call them muffins?"
Cooling trend? Not quite. 2010 was the warmest year since records have been kept, and 10 of the past 11 years have been above average. 2011 was the eleventh warmest year on record, the warmest La Niña year on record, and the 35th consecutive year of above-average temperatures (relative to the average for the entire 20th century). Thus far, 2012 is on track to surpassing 2011 in several measures. Even if there were a cooling trend, it's the longer-term context that matters; terrestrial climate is complex, and change comes in jagged trends, not even slopes. For a snapshot putting some of the most recent data into a larger historical context graphically, this one does the trick nicely.
Unproven, you say, but science doesn't deal in proof. Anthropogenic global warming is "unproven" in the same way that evolution and Big Bang cosmology are "unproven": it doesn't lend itself to the sort of laboratory-based observational testing that produces results anyone can immediately see and understand, and yet it is empirically testable in enough meaningful ways that it forms a coherent body of evidence that underpins a theory. And scientific theories (which I'm sure you know are quite different from other sorts of theories) are as close as science ever gets to "proof". ( Here's an unusually articulate essay on that point, in case you're interested.)
So we have an accepted scientific theory, but we also have a calculated, sustained effort to manufacture uncertainty. As long as the seeds of uncertainty are allowed to take root, the standoff between science and ignorance/greed/shortsightedness continues. But it is unconscionable to let the standoff continue or adopt a wait-and-see attitude. Even if the prevailing theory of climate change turns out to be fundamentally wrong (which is very unlikely), the overwhelming likelihood that it is right obliges us to take all available measures to halt (and if possible reverse) the warming trend, as well as to do everything reasonably possible to mitigate the damage which, even under the best-case scenarios, will continue to manifest itself for centuries. Doing less, or continuing to drag our feet instead of acting, will not only create untold misery for future generations of humans and doom vast numbers of other species—all that is a near-inevitability—but actually has the potential to transform our planet into something quite unrecognizable and perhaps barely habitable. There will always be uncertainty about the exact details of the future, but that's no excuse for wholesale disbelief in an overwhelming body of evidence.
As for the disbelievers, while I personally would rather seek to enlighten instead of attack anyone, I'm afraid we've reached the point where such attacks (counterattacks, really) are inevitable. "Don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall / For he who gets hurt will be he who has stalled", Bob Dylan sang almost half a century ago. He didn't know about global warming, which was the faintest blip on the climatological radar of the day, but his lyrics make sense in this modern context. Skepticism is one thing (all good scientists practice it) but the kind of widespread disbelief about global warming that abounds in much of the developed world is impeding any possibility of averting a worldwide, slow-motion catastrophe. And the disbelief, or much of it, arises from disinformation. The oil companies, allied corporate interests, and the ideological provocateurs who abet them spend vast sums of money in order to mislead journalists, mislead voters, mislead elected officials. (Mislead Wikipedians, too.) In doing so, they don't hesitate to attack anyone who supports using sound science as opposed to propaganda. Let's not kid ourselves that they're going to abandon those tactics as long as their short-term profits are at the slightest risk. And please, let's not pretend that their well-funded attacks on legitimate scientists, public officials, and individual citizens trying to do the right thing are somehow equivalent to even the most pointed criticism aimed at the deniers. (There's an analogy here, if I'm not mistaken).
Sorry to rant at you. Go consult some good sources, then email me if you want to talk more about this. I hope you have a beautiful Friday. Rivertorch ( talk) 10:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I was asked for an official document to show that the actual name is Sandy Hook School. Here it is. And official, formal budget from the district's own website. I also provided proof via Sandy Hook's own local newspaper. And the the district's official home page, which shows the names of the school when you hover on the Schools tab. -- 76.189.123.142 ( talk) 16:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I think the discussions in this section may address some of the things you mentioned on my talk page. Or not :) - Dank ( push to talk) 16:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
One of the best suggestions you made was early on, when you proposed that like-minded editors (e.g., those historically opposed to PC) get together and try to hammer out something they'd find acceptable, then bring that to the table. I think that might have made a difference, but I couldn't figure out how to engineer it without opening myself up to accusations of canvassing. For similar reasons, I've been reluctant to begin conversations with editors away from the PC2012 pages even when I think a one-on-one discussion might be beneficial to finding common ground and moving the process along. And when I do bother to try that approach, I'm met either with an oblique response or no response at all. Chess analogies aside, the whole endeavor seems very much like feeling one's way through unfamiliar territory on a moonless night with nothing but a glow stick and an intermittent flashlight. If I make the wrong move, will I foil someone's carefully laid (and entirely benevolent) plan? lose my own credibility? screw everything up and piss everyone off? Maybe I would do better just to abandon the whole thing and go find a quiet corner and play wikignome. Problem is, I know damn well that PC is going to eventually find me wherever I go, and if it's anything like the provisional policy I'm not going to like it when it does. Rivertorch ( talk) 21:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, WP:PC2012/RfC 1 can look scary, because the statements are short and don't have a lot of depth, which is typical for RfCs. But WT:PC2012 by itself wasn't getting the job done, we weren't getting the spectrum of opinions we needed to be able to put together RfCs that will attempt to address all the concerns the voters are likely to have. The only "strategy" I see here is basic social skills:
Why do you engage in censorship while referrimg to my simple, logical and modest edit as vandalism? The issue has already been determined in theory- depictions of Muhammad are not to be censored because they are pictures of Muhammad. Yet what I found in the space which would normally show an image of the person written about is a stylized depiction of the word for Muhammad itself, in Arabic. Refer me to a page about any famous Englishman or American or Australian which, in place of that persons image, there appears that person's name in English - but written in flourished italics. That would be ludicrous and it is equally ludicrous for Muhammad's name to appear in that fashion. Kindly spare me the duty of reverting your reversion - or state your reasoning for reverting my edit and calling it vandalism. Your failure to provide any explanation does not seem in good faith to me. QuintBy ( talk) 08:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Good morning yourself. I realize that by the standard you apply to me, you are old around here. Thus I find it disappointing that tutelage you have offered me as a 'new' editor is not sufficiently explanatory of your own editing/reversion of Muhammad. What the big colorful message staring me in face told me was that the quasi-image of Muhammad that was in place when I arrived had not been discussed and thus warranted reversion. It was your reversion of my edit which was inconsistent with the message which stared you in the face as well. What your reversion did was return to view the very image on the page which had warranted removal in the first place, for violation of the 'colorful' rule requiring discussion of all images used. More to the point, in returning that image to view you did not yourself undertake to provide the requisite discussion that was missing when I arrived and is still missing as I write this. The fact of the matter is that when you arrived, my edit had been reverted/edited already. Following the letter of the colorful rule, neither the image of Muhammad represented in Arabic nor my own edit to include a visual depiction of Muhammad's visage were discussed in advance of being placed. So why would you follow the discussion rule as it pertained to the image I added, but not follow that same rule with regard to the image which you reverted back to, which also was not vetted through discussion on the colorful page? I am confused by your interpretation of what was staring us both in the face, and also puzzled that when you returned the image which I edited out because there was zero discussion regarding it, that you did not rectify that omission by inserting your own discussion in support of inclusion of the stylistic depiction of Muhammad. Belated is better than omitted. Please discuss (on the in-your-face page) why you think that an image which deliberately avoids depicting Muhammad's visage is consistent with the consensus that a depiction of Muhammad's visage is not to be censored. QuintBy ( talk) 18:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the substantive question of the image, it was all discussed ad nauseam during the RfC (linked above and now linked again for your convenience). If you want to know my opinion, go read the RfC and see how I !voted on the various questions. But my opinion, like your opinion, is really very much beside the point. The point is that consensus was reached, it may eventually change but not anytime soon, and everyone needs to accept it. Consensus is arguably the basis of everything we do on Wikipedia. My restoration of the consensus version of the article was grounded in policy. Such edits, made to enforce consensus, do not require any accompanying discussion; the discussion has already been had. Rivertorch ( talk) 22:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
& hey rivertouch, did you remember me from mango page!
I just realized that I made that careless edit. I'm glad you caught it. Thank you. Oh sheesh. Red faced here. LOL That was dumb on my part and I will be much more careful in the future. Marmenta ( talk) 07:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
You did the right thing. It was my fault when I archived the page without checking for unanswered edit requests and keeping them on the talk page. — Cupco 18:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing,
Lobster , has been proposed for a
merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going
here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
PeterWesco (
talk)
05:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
If you can't be bothered to even read an edit request, it would be better if you didn't just casually flip it off. It took me some time and effort to find the correct parameter, and I expected it to be fixed. 184.78.81.245 ( talk) 17:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
My name is Veysel Peru, you have commented to a writing of mine in the Talk_Quran section. I kindly want you to read my personal site http://www.VeyselicNumbers.com and return your comments on it.
Thank you very much.
Veyselperu ( talk) 08:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Veysel Peru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veyselperu ( talk • contribs) 06:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
(sorry if this is in the wrong place, I haven't used it before)
Although, I may have made a few grammatical errors in editing 'sewage treatment', shouldn't the subject matter of the section be confined to sewage treatment... or better wastewater treatment (since 'sewage' is somewhat deprecated in the field). I was trying to explain generalities of wwt as succinctly as possible. Perhaps I should have used a laptop instead of an ipad...
Tissue culture is not done at treatment plants. Although there are fixed film processes, the true wwt reactors are either anaerobic digesters or pure oxygen reactors: since they are closed to the atmosphere(is that not the implication of a bioreactor). I don't know whether aerators, trickling filters, or rotating biological contactors are truly bioreactors, since they are open to the atmosphere, but the are not tissue culture.
I operate pure oxygen reactors with a flow through of about 350MGD (think how many plants in the USA have that flow), the atmosphere is excluded to decrease nitrogen input. Although I have heard of mobile fixed film wwt plant in NZ that uses some kind of media called Kaldanes, generally wwt is activated sludge w/o media in reactors or aerators--probably to avoid problems with pump impellers and media/zooglia separation.
Should I have added references? Maybe, but in wwt, what I wrote is general knowledge just as the unreferenced tissue culture stuff is probably general knowledge. But, can we separate, into separate sections: WWT from academic Tissue Culture, Industrial Bioreactors, and especially Proprietary Bioreaction Processes?
Perhaps you could re-edit what I wrote to something more popularly intelligible--as you have seen my writing isn't the best. The Ken Kerri books from CSU Sacramento are the standard set of California texts for operator certification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.21.108 ( talk) 21:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:PC2012/RfC_2#Modification_to_BLP_question_response_section |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello. Because the "Yes" section was split between one group in favor of applying protection to all articles and one group in favor of applying protection to articles only when there has been a problem, I have split the section to reflect this difference. Please go back to that page and make sure that your vote is still in the section that most closely reflects your views. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
|
I hope you don't mind I took the talk-page RfC live with most of your proposed questions, along with a general area for people to raise any concerns they have with the proposed policy text that now lives on WP:PC. It's at WT:PC. Feel free to notify anyone else that you think might not be watching the page already. It's on CENT as well. Gigs ( talk) 20:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I've collapsed the RfC temporarily, and commented out the WP:CENT advertising. Feel free to add more questions to it and reopen it when you are ready. Gigs ( talk) 19:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for being responsive to my concerns. Stay safe. Rivertorch ( talk) 20:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
for your appropriate and well-timed application of WP:IAR recently -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 23:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC) |
RiverTorch, I am Jay Leno. Please quit reversing my changes... James.Douglas.Muir ( talk) 04:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Rivertorch, let's be clear here. We're in a bit of a pickle with time and politics and speech not playing out freely, as they should be, at the moment, and getting people's visibility on this subject matter is of the utmost concern. So what you're saying is you feel justified in limiting my freedom of speech, and not only that, you feel justified in limiting my freedom of speech and disallow me talking about myself?
So how does this sound, Since you've remained anonymous to me, send me your name and full contact information to my email address, at James.Douglas.Muir@gmail.com, or you can contact me at (818) 840-3223, or better yet, contact me on my web site, which you can do any google search and ask if I support these changes. Or better yet, how about you stop by my studios, and we can chat personally about this. I'd love to discuss how Wikipedia editors suddenly adopted fascism and are now disallowing us from editing information about ourselves....
I'm interested in knowing who has the audacity to feel I need to prove myself to them.. That takes balls, that's for sure, but I give you the opportunity to justify your actions.. Who knows, I may make it a segment on my show, Wikipedia could clearly use a humility check if this is who we have representing our information... — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.Douglas.Muir ( talk • contribs) 05:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
After reading many of things that I have read on your Talk Page, I just have to say that you have shown more patience than anyone I have ever encountered on or off of Wikipedia. It's almost like some people are just trying to get you to blow up and you just remain completely calm. (feel free to delete all this if you want, I just felt the need to mention this after your reaction to alot of the abuse people have thrown at you). King of Nothing ( talk) 06:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC) |
I've reviewed a lot of the successful and unsuccessful Requests for Adminship and I've reviewed a lot of your Contributions and I think you would be a lock to become an Administrator. If you would like someone to nominate you, I would be happy to do so (or if you'd like to nominate yourself I'd be happy to participate in the RfA). Let me know. As Always, With Thanks King of Nothing ( talk) 19:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
I know some of my actions frustrated you, but I'm glad we could work something out in the end. Gigs ( talk) 14:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC) |
BTW- GedUK added new comments to the not-yet-open RfC 3, despite the warnings at the top. Are we ready to just call it open? I think most of the recent participants in the RfC design process have weighed in at this point. Gigs ( talk) 14:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Was going to give you the barnstar of diplomacy, but i see someone beat me to it...So have a kitty for the great work on Talk:Homophobia. Thanks and have an amazing day!
ツ Jenova
20 (
email)
09:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia. Thank you. - Mr X 19:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Homophobia isn't a phobia, homophobes aren't scared... "they're just assholes" ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 20:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I'm concerned at the rejection of processes that the community as a whole has endorsed over the years. That's not going to end well, and any suggestions for smoother and fairer running of the thing gratefully accepted. Here, at least. -- Pete ( talk) 07:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Your page message made me laugh and with the recent drama at ANI you could probably do with a cuppa. Enjoy this and hurry back! ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 20:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC) |
MrX, you're most welcome to join the party. (Why does the phrase "tea party", even in lower case, give me a queasy feeling, I wonder?) Pull up a chair and make yourself comfortable. I have no wisdom to offer, just half-baked hypotheses like the one above, but the larder at Commons is full and I have credit there. Rivertorch ( talk) 06:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat ( talk) 11:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The LGBT Barnstar | |
Rivertorch, I see you doing consistent good work and putting up with some professional POV pushers. You hold your ground and act diplomatic even when provoked. Thank you for the good work you do. Keep it up. Cluetrainwoowoo ( talk) 04:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC) |
Rivertorch, thanks for your feedback on the Beethoven page! I would like to ask what you think might be the best way forward for our project with regard to Wikipedia integration. www.openclassical.com is itself a very large project, and my vision for it has always been to be an educational (and inspirational) resource on the web. I always thought it would link naturally from Wikipedia. So I find myself looking now at how to begin persuading the community here that it is a valid resource, and which fills a gap in the Wikipedia platform (an organized catalog of classical music) that cannot be found anywhere else on the Internet.
A large problem I see online, with regards to classical music, is that it is quite difficult to explore the works of the composers in a simple way, especially if you're not a trained musician. Current efforts tend to be huge lists (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Ludwig_van_Beethoven) that are not sortable / filterable, or what I would call user-friendly. To say nothing of movements, instrumentation, dedications, premiere performances, etc - features currently being built into openclassical. My goal is for a visitor to be able to quickly discover a composer's greatest works, and also hear them.
The thing that really excites me about our YouTube integration is that the quality of recordings (professional and amateur) tend to be surprisingly good. So good in fact that a visitor gets a great impression of the music. I understand the concern about possibly copyrighted material on YouTube, but I did not think it would be an objection to adding openclassical as an external link from Wikipedia. What do you think would be a reasonable way to address this? I believe the vast majority of movies we get from the YouTube api are fine, however openclassical itself cannot tell in any case. Is this really a concern for Wikipedia?
The second issue you mention is the reliability of our information. Interesting question, something I had not thought might be considered. Our team are doctoral level professional musicians, so again I would really like to ask your opinion about how you (and others) might expect this to be addressed? Maybe something like an 'our team' page? On the other hand, I would imagine that since each work we list tends to have YouTube movies and links to scores via IMSLP would prove the existence of the work in general?
Thanks! D clef ( talk) 01:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
To answer a couple of your specific questions, linking to possible copyright violations is definitely a concern for Wikipedia. (I think we go overboard on that concern sometimes, but then again I also think that copyright law has become utterly ludicrous in recent years, and we do need to stay on the good side of all laws—even ludicrous ones.) Yes, I definitely think an "our team" page would be a good thing. Whether such a page would be helpful in making your case for linking the site from Wikipedia articles, I'm not sure, but it couldn't hurt.
One other thing. From your comments, I take it you're affiliated with openclassical.com. At the moment, Wikipedia has a rather incoherent approach to addressing conflicts of interest. We do have a guideline that you probably should read, but it's hard to predict exactly how it will be applied in a given case.
I do appreciate your taking the time to discuss the matter. I think the web site in question is an interesting one, and whatever happens vis-à-vis Wikipedia, I wish you much success. Feel free to contact me again if you think I can be of any help. Rivertorch ( talk) 05:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes I am affiliated with openclassical.com, but as far as COI goes, I really don't think we're trying to assert a bias about which composer or music is better than others (quite the opposite actually); our mission is to collate the objective facts of classical music history and make them easy to discover.
As the site continues to improve hopefully the WP community will become persuaded of our educational focus, and value as an external link to WP visitors. I think a bit later on, when openclassical is more comprehensive, we'll begin a discussion on the external links noticeboard as you suggest.
I'll keep you posted as the site grows in the meantime, thanks again! D clef ( talk) 01:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry, not really yelling at you but it does come up at inopportune moments and can derail the discussion in a most spectacular way. With some caveats (traditional BrE usage, what I can easliy buy in a non-specialist supermarket etc) the muffin is basically a flattish bread product which although it does have a top and a bottom is pretty up-down symmetrical. Inside, it is just a type of bread, albeit delicious. The crumpet does not have up-down symmetry - the top and bottom are completely different. The bottom is a sealed flat surface and the top is covered in small holes, maybe about 2-3mm or so in diameter, which descend into the material. When you have toasted it, you butter the top surface and the butter melts into the holes. To turn it upside down at this point would be a catastrophe. The surfaces are waxier and a bit tougher than ordinary bread - to the touch there is something almost plasticky about them although that makes it sounds horrible, which they are not. Far from it. Please visit the UK and permit me to entertain you to tea - once you have experienced them there is no possibility of confusion. Oh, and if coming from the USA please bring a bag of AmE "English muffins" as (a) I like them and (b) it is a most useful comparison between them, BrE muffins, and crumpets, and all three are different! Hope this helps. Cheers DBaK ( talk) 08:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
A raisin muffin (or is it now a scone?) for you! |
Here in the UK muffins are cupcakes without icing, Crumpets are indeed as described by another of your stalkers (lovely when combined with baked beans), and the Muffin Man is an actual man. Enjoy =P ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 09:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC) |
Rivertorch ( talk) 11:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Lady Selina was continuing.
"Only place in London you can still get muffins. Real muffins. Do you know when I went to America last year they had something called muffins on the breakfast menu. Not real muffins at all. Kind of teacake with raisins in them. I mean, why call them muffins?"
Cooling trend? Not quite. 2010 was the warmest year since records have been kept, and 10 of the past 11 years have been above average. 2011 was the eleventh warmest year on record, the warmest La Niña year on record, and the 35th consecutive year of above-average temperatures (relative to the average for the entire 20th century). Thus far, 2012 is on track to surpassing 2011 in several measures. Even if there were a cooling trend, it's the longer-term context that matters; terrestrial climate is complex, and change comes in jagged trends, not even slopes. For a snapshot putting some of the most recent data into a larger historical context graphically, this one does the trick nicely.
Unproven, you say, but science doesn't deal in proof. Anthropogenic global warming is "unproven" in the same way that evolution and Big Bang cosmology are "unproven": it doesn't lend itself to the sort of laboratory-based observational testing that produces results anyone can immediately see and understand, and yet it is empirically testable in enough meaningful ways that it forms a coherent body of evidence that underpins a theory. And scientific theories (which I'm sure you know are quite different from other sorts of theories) are as close as science ever gets to "proof". ( Here's an unusually articulate essay on that point, in case you're interested.)
So we have an accepted scientific theory, but we also have a calculated, sustained effort to manufacture uncertainty. As long as the seeds of uncertainty are allowed to take root, the standoff between science and ignorance/greed/shortsightedness continues. But it is unconscionable to let the standoff continue or adopt a wait-and-see attitude. Even if the prevailing theory of climate change turns out to be fundamentally wrong (which is very unlikely), the overwhelming likelihood that it is right obliges us to take all available measures to halt (and if possible reverse) the warming trend, as well as to do everything reasonably possible to mitigate the damage which, even under the best-case scenarios, will continue to manifest itself for centuries. Doing less, or continuing to drag our feet instead of acting, will not only create untold misery for future generations of humans and doom vast numbers of other species—all that is a near-inevitability—but actually has the potential to transform our planet into something quite unrecognizable and perhaps barely habitable. There will always be uncertainty about the exact details of the future, but that's no excuse for wholesale disbelief in an overwhelming body of evidence.
As for the disbelievers, while I personally would rather seek to enlighten instead of attack anyone, I'm afraid we've reached the point where such attacks (counterattacks, really) are inevitable. "Don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall / For he who gets hurt will be he who has stalled", Bob Dylan sang almost half a century ago. He didn't know about global warming, which was the faintest blip on the climatological radar of the day, but his lyrics make sense in this modern context. Skepticism is one thing (all good scientists practice it) but the kind of widespread disbelief about global warming that abounds in much of the developed world is impeding any possibility of averting a worldwide, slow-motion catastrophe. And the disbelief, or much of it, arises from disinformation. The oil companies, allied corporate interests, and the ideological provocateurs who abet them spend vast sums of money in order to mislead journalists, mislead voters, mislead elected officials. (Mislead Wikipedians, too.) In doing so, they don't hesitate to attack anyone who supports using sound science as opposed to propaganda. Let's not kid ourselves that they're going to abandon those tactics as long as their short-term profits are at the slightest risk. And please, let's not pretend that their well-funded attacks on legitimate scientists, public officials, and individual citizens trying to do the right thing are somehow equivalent to even the most pointed criticism aimed at the deniers. (There's an analogy here, if I'm not mistaken).
Sorry to rant at you. Go consult some good sources, then email me if you want to talk more about this. I hope you have a beautiful Friday. Rivertorch ( talk) 10:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I was asked for an official document to show that the actual name is Sandy Hook School. Here it is. And official, formal budget from the district's own website. I also provided proof via Sandy Hook's own local newspaper. And the the district's official home page, which shows the names of the school when you hover on the Schools tab. -- 76.189.123.142 ( talk) 16:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)