User talk:Blue Tie/Archive 1

Re: WP:Vandalism

The section is titled What vandalism is not and it leads with "Although sometimes referred to as such, the following things are not vandalism and are therefore treated differently:" (emphasis added). If you list Nonsense under this section, a lot of people are at least going to be confused. You are opening up a huge loophole that vandals will use to argue that they should not be blocked for vandalism. Please discuss this proposed change on the talk page before making it.

As for the "admin bot thing" I'm not sure what you are referring to. Could you explain? Thanks, Gwernol 21:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You replied:

I understand what you are saying. I will bring it up on the Talk Page, but really it is self evident. Sometimes nonsense is only an accident or a person had problems expressing themselves. They should NOT be treated as vandals immediately! but more importantly, One user was already confused by the difference in policy. You can read the problem on User talk:Pat8722. The policy WP:Nonsense says that Nonsense is not Vandalism. The Policy WP:Vandalism says that it is. The should be consistent. And I think my edit fixed the problem reasonably.

Actually I don't think your solution quite works. I agree there's inconistency, but all you've done with your edit is move it from one place to another. The problem is that by adding it to WP:VAN as you did you have said both that nonsense is never vandalism and also that nonsense sometimes can be vandalism. This needs a more comprehensive solution, so discussing it on the Talk page is the way to go. To be fair the WP:VAN page makes this very clear right at the top.

As for the Admin Bot thing -- you have a table on your Page that shows those people who have requests for adminship and how the vote is going. I want one! --Blue Tie 21:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty easy to do. Just go to my user page and click the "edit this page" tab. From there you can copy the code which inserts the feature you want, then paste it onto your user page. In this case the code is simply: {{User:Dragons_flight/RFA_summary}}. Best, Gwernol 22:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My view is quite simple. We have a section that says "the following things are never vandalism". You want to add Nonsense as one of the things in that list. But you say that nonsense sometimes can be vandalism (which we agree on). Nonsense cannot be "sometimes vandalism" and "never vandalism" at the same time. That's a logial contradiction.

So instead of doing that, go to the definition of nonsense at WP:Nonsense and make it clear there that nonsense is sometimes vandalism and sometimes not. Define when its vandalism and when it isn't. Then on WP:Vandalism you do the same. That way the two policies are consistent and correct.

I agree with what you are trying to do, I'm just saying that your proposed solution to the problem is just as logically inconsistent as the status quo, so neither is the correct solution. I hope that's clear now. Gwernol 22:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. As usual its amazing how quickly we can bridge the gap when we talk to each other. This is why I like Wikipedia's consensus approach so much.

Talking of HyperCard, I'm not just an enthusiast, I was the engineering manager for HyperCard for more than a year when I worked at Apple. I agree that the company should have done more with it; unfortunately Steve Jobs never got HyperCard's potential, and he canned the project. Best, Gwernol 23:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly I only ever met Bill Atkinson once - he had left Apple several years before I joined the company. By then he was a photographer and he came by to talk to the team about his nature photography. It was really impressive stuff, and he'd developed some cool software for managing his photos - years before iPhoto and similar products. I did know both Steves (especially Jobs) and worked for Chris Espinosa while I was there, so I got to know a lot of the famous early Apple guys. I now work at another well known company where Andy Hertzfeld also works, so the Apple connections never cease :-) Best, Gwernol 23:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Apple rejected me twice before I finally landed a job with them. Then I stayed for four years, so a bit of persistence always pays off :-) I'm pretty sure Bill resigned from Apple, but after arguing with Jobs. Once you argued with Steve your tenure with the company was usually pretty short in those days. In some ways Apple was the best job I ever had and in some ways the worst. Jobs is a genius and a very difficult guy to work with, all at the same time. I'm glad I got the chance to do it, not sure I'd want to go back... Gwernol 23:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Page Creation

(moved from user page)

(To Blue Tie: I'd normally put this on your talkpage - i don't usually edit other people's userpages, but since you asked for it - the table above may help you in editing wikipedia -- (James McNally) (talkpage) 14:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)).[reply]

DPT

Hi, Thanks for your message re Democratic peace theory, yes it would be nice to get a pear review, however go cautiously. This has been a very heated debate with lots of discussion in the archive, various related AfD's RfC's etc. For example see the latest Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies 2. Its worth reading some of these before hand. This is very much a content dispute and reading the supporting litrature is highly vital. Currently a truce has been arrived at, and I feel the ballance of the article is about right although the wording is tricky. --Salix alba (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your request, if you think it would be helpful, I am willing to try; however, the amount of reading and the care needed to see whether Ultramarine is using his sources accurately is a burden. You should be aware that Ultramarine considers me a co-conspirator with Septentrionalis, and so my participation is likely to provoke him.

Our acquaintance began in a rather unfortunate way -- while I was still learning the ropes here. The article was a featured candidate, but basically presented Rummel's view alone. Septentrionalis and I each criticized Rummel's statistics and methods what I consider grounds obvious to any sophomore, citing only textbooks on method. When Ultramarine insisted on interpreting WP:V strictly -- don't find a statistics book that lets you make the critique, find someone who made it in context -- the search began.

In the process, I have been accused of a various set of perfidities, including speculations as to real-world identity, institutional affiliation and so on. I am, however, perfectly willing to try, if you still want me. A lot of electrons have given their all for DPT, and it would benefit Wikipedia for it to be a good, or even featured article. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation is always welcome to most of those concerned with this article. Ultramarine has already rejected mediation by Kelly Martin and Kim Bruning; if you are willing to go ahead under those conditions, please do. The present text of the article is largely his; I have not edited the text for some months.

My chief concerns at the moment are these:

Ultramarine has included the entire text of the article Possible wars between liberal democracies into DPT. This is a PoV argument in favor of an extreme view, held by three authors of the many who have written on the subject. It has been deleted four times.
Ultramarine (and therefore the present text) relies disproportionately on three authors: Rummel, Ray, and Weart. (There are many authors who support some theory of the democratic peace; there are some authors who hold it to be an illusion.)
Ultramarine practices selective quotation, to an extent which has led some of us to believe that he has real difficulties reading English.
Ultramarine does not understand what plagiarism is; for an example, now fixed, see Talk:Liberal democracy#Plagiarism.
Ultramarine has spent the last couple months reverting contributions to the article by third parties and anons, on various specious grounds. Some of these were improvements; some should be salvaged and sourced, rather than removed.

I see you wrote Scaife, who has been largely away from Wikipedia, on real-world concerns. He edited yesterday, so he may turn up; if so, he will be most helpful. Septentrionalis 14:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No; I've simply been taking a break; if there is going to be a genuine effort to straighten it out, I'd be glad to help. Septentrionalis 02:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]