This page 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.

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia ( talk) 19:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

After reviewing the current version of WP:PSTS at WP:NOR, I happened to glance at the talk page, and saw that you are currently actively involved in discussions there pertaining to the very portions of the policy you have been quoting in our discussions on the Scientology talk page. To be blunt, this has the appearance of gaming the system, and I would like to urge your withdrawal from those discussions, or alternatively from the topics those policy discussions apply to. While looking at policies and closing their loopholes is a normal process of editing uncontroversial material, doing so when involved in highly contentious material is really not a good idea, especially without revealing your involvement therein. As I am sure you are aware, User:Jossi recently retired from Wikipedia under a cloud, in similar circumstances. Even if you are not intentionally gaming, it has the appearance thereof. Would you be willing to voluntarily refrain from arguing for changes at WP:NOR until the current arbitration is resolved, or at least disclose the content discussions and arbitration you're currently involved with? -- Good Damon 04:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Professor marginalia invited me to that discussion (see above) well after ours began. I've argued for these types of clarifications before, partly because the same phrasing has long been successful policy in the German WP ( [1]), preventing many of the problems we have over here. What's right is right, independently of whether we are having a related discussion or not, and I will continue to argue my case. Cheers, Jayen 466 12:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That is your choice. All I can do is point out how it appears. -- Good Damon 14:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Note that the portions of policy I have been quoting in our discussion (specifically the ones relating to primary sources) were the current versions, none of which I had a hand in formulating. Jayen 466 12:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That's true, and I appreciate it, but I still wish you had disclosed to User:Professor marginalia and others that you were involved in discussions about the application of that policy on a contentious, ArbCom-involved topic. Personally, I think it's bad form not to. -- Good Damon 14:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think if you look at the people who arrive on the policy talk page, most everyone who comes with a concern or who seeks a clarification of policy wording is at that time involved in some dispute or other that they've realised the policy seems insufficient to help them address. I've seen other contributors ask, "Can you give us an example", or "Can you point us to the actual dispute you're involved in, so we can better understand what you are talking about?", but I've never seen them say, "You shouldn't be on this policy talk page because you are currently involved in a dispute." I would argue that disputes have historically been what caused policies to be developed – someone described a concern, people agreed it was a problem (or not), and policy was written (or not) to address it. If it makes you feel better, I'll mention the Hubbard examples next time I post there. Cheers, Jayen 466 16:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Recently I started working on Meaning of life, an article which was suffering from some major layout problems. A few people have pitched in, and I think it's moving in the right direction now. There are a large number of religions described therein; if you have time, we could use some help summarizing the religious sections to deal more specifically with the subject matter of the article in a summary style, rather than being an arduous description of the religion itself which includes unrelated details. Thanks. ← Spidern → 15:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. Will have a look. Jayen 466 15:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to mention that there is a good deal of original research in the lead and introduction. I'm thinking that three paragraphs, each one generally describing a discipline (Religion, Philosophy, or Science), would prime the reader for reading through the section of interest. ← Spidern → 16:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jayen466, thanks for your support on the talk page. I see that the proposal has not generated much discussion so far, so I was considering making a formal text proposal. Here's what I have in mind. It's the same as the paragraph on the talk page (criterion 3) except that I added the word suggest in the last sentence, to take into account cases where the information clearly suggests, without necessarily entailing, a conclusion. What are your impressions? Also, I'm wandering where this paragraph would fit on the policy page, in the lead, in the body of the article? Would other changes need to be made on the policy page?

Editors should build an article by summarizing the sources available on the topic of the article. Any information added should therefore be based on reliable sources that present this information in direct connection with the article subject. In some cases, supplementary information from generic sources that cover a broader subject area than the specific article topic may be deemed to add value to an article, in order to clarify places, people or things mentioned in the article (WP:PCR). For example, an editor might want to add a detail from a reliable source that describes the historical context in which the subject of an article lived, even though the cited source does not mention the article subject. This is fine as long as it does not suggest or entail a substantial new conclusion about the article subject that is not present in any of the sources.

Cheers, Phenylalanine ( talk) 22:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I remember our earlier discussions and still like what the paragraph says, but like you am unable right now to see where it should go. If we wanted to weaken WP:SYN to make sure that background detail that does not involve any new conclusion is fine to include (I guess that would be the main new content in the above), then it should probably come after SYN. But the text repeats some of the content of SYN and the section just before SYN.

To tell you the truth, I found the logic proof you posted a while back on the NOR talk page, about the implied novel conclusion, so brilliant – or at least it made me see what we already had in the wording – that I have more or less made my peace with the SYN section as it is. Given that adding uncontentious background info by definition does not involve any new conclusion, it should also be clear that adding such background info is not forbidden by the SYN policy.

Perhaps the best thing would be to write an essay expanding on all of this, and perhaps include that logic proof. Sorry I can't be more helpful at the moment, if any brilliant ideas come to me, you'll be the first to know. :-) Cheers, Jayen 466 01:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think writing an essay is a great idea. How about User:Phenylalanine/Synthesis of published material which advances an implicit position? Thanks! Phenylalanine ( talk) 02:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I had not noticed that the same sentence is in WP:SYN. It's more of an issue for WP:NOR than it is for WP:NPOV anyway, I realize. But my slant for the moment was to try to take the existing sentence in WP:UNDUE and try to improve it a bit. ... Kenosis ( talk) 02:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC) §hepBot ( Disable) 19:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You have expressed an opinion concerning material which is currently found in edits on this page. Collect ( talk) 16:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 23:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! 
JDPhD (
talk) 16:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the eight lobbyists was his son, not attributed with having worked in the government <g>. I personally think the number is quite irrelevant in any case, unless Dicklyon wishes to establish that this was not typical of CC lobbying firms in the first place. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 20:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Fixed it. Cheers, Jayen 466 21:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The facts exist: citation needed. JDPhD ( talk) 22:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've taken it out for now: let's try and find a source first; then we can put it back. Better that way round. Cheers, Jayen 466 00:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated OSHO Dynamic Meditation, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OSHO Dynamic Meditation. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ← Spidern → 05:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite right about using 'ibid.' in Wikipedia. Have whiteout will correct. JDPhD ( talk) 21:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Jayen 466 22:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 04:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot ( Disable)

Jayen: Bravo! Olé! for this:

This looks just like a day's Rawat editing to me, with Momento on 2RR [6][7] Will on 2RR [8][9], Pongostick on 4RR [10][11][12][13], Surdas on 3RR [14][15][16], and two IP reverts. By all means run checkusers. Now of course you might ask, why is it that Momento is dragged here with his two reverts, rather than Surdas or Pongostick, or indeed Will? And if anyone still cares about writing an encyclopedia rather than counting reverts and hoping for the AE post that will finally get rid of the hated opponent: It's nonsense to say "Prem Rawat, also known as Balyogeshwar". Bal is Hindi for "baby" or "kid". It's a name Rawat had when he was six, and it meant "the kid master yogi". We've discussed that a number of times before as well. It's like saying "Bill Clinton, also known as Little Billy." If there's still people who don't get it, and insist on reverting that back in, it's not for lack of being told. I am tempted to say lock the article or topic-ban the lot of them for a week. Jayen466 02:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope more people like you will come to Wikipedia, and fewer of another kind.-- Pedrero ( talk) 04:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope I did not sound churlish - I apprecioate your comments and was just trying to clarify my own. I agree that good leads just summarize the contents, but in this case I do not htink the lead is doing that. Anyway, I do appreciate your comments on the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and no prob; it is kind of you to say so. Cheers, Jayen 466 14:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, what are thoughts on the recent revisions to the essay? Cheers, Phenylalanine ( talk) 17:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, I have made further substantial revisions to the essay. Any comments or suggestions? Cheers, Phenylalanine ( talk) 13:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to ask on the Indian noticeboard. I'm going off on a long break. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)