User talk:Jwy/Archives/2009/May

Talkback

Hello, Jwy. You have new messages at SimonTrew's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Added a thank-you on my user page though I'd prefer to keep the discussion in one place SimonTrew (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Jwy. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You messaged to Pie are Round in regard to David Hilbert: "As I am okay with the result, I'm addressing these question here rather than the Hilbert talk page: 1) in what way was my last comment on the talk page different from this earlier shorter comment - I don't believe I've been vague about my intentions, but an author can be blind to such things and 2) what wiki policy do you believe my suggestion would be violating? I can see editors disagreeing as to its appropriateness, but I don't see a policy violation. (John User:Jwy talk) 05:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)"

Thank you for your contributions to the Hilbert page. I have a good regard for your ability. I see more than you might imagine. But I have also extensively explained my objections. Please recall our discussions about earlier edits. Yet still I understand you may be blind to having adopted false assumptions as true. In brief, your language, comments, and edits betray that, in an abundance of fairness and generosity, you are prepared to elevate an extreme minority view to stature equal to or greater than an overwhelmingly majority view. You do so by being ambiguous about which view is ascendant, you are ambiguous because you may think "fairness" means "non-controversy". You want to not discuss matters except to give some credit to Hilbert. Your last comment made this entirely clear, and it would have saved me a lot of work if you had stated that up front, for it is clearly problematic and I believe you are intelligent and have integrity enough to see that if it is cogently pointed out. I understand that you may not immediately "see" that your edits have this effect, or have credited Hilbert with things the world has overwhelmingly credited to others, or that you have also tenaciously adhered to your views, obstructing attempts at revision. I appreciate that you may not see that some of your language, however well-intended, may be loaded, and argumentative. Nonetheless, you conduct as editor has been within acceptable bounds, in good faith, and I believe that you now understand that a view that elevates a minority view beyond its due does not meet encyclopedic standards, and particularly violates Wiki NPOV.

Despite my critical comments, you have made valuable contributions which I recognize and I have in no way lost confidence in you as editor of the Hilbert article. It is my sincere belief that you are fully capable, and my sincere hope that you will continue your work on that article, to improve it with scholarly additions, and to help in revising some of the problems introduced by some prior editors (which you may have previously accommodated), and to guide other editors to better work. The generic problem that causes the most difficulty is a pervasive error in epistemology that physics and mathematics are the same, that writing an equation is the same as doing physics. They are not, it is not. Scientists decide what is science, not mathematicians, and believe me there is good reason for that, even if mathematicians can't see it. Yet Hilbert firmly believed there was no difference (Paris 1900, problem 6). He was mistaken (Godel, 1931). Sometimes younger mathematicians, and even some scientists, lose their way. When such impact a wiki article, it is the responsibility of steadfast editors, such as you, to keep matters guided.

I most sincerely thank you for your contributions on the wikipedia, and for your aid in the editing job on the Hilbert article. --Pie are round (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your extremely kind remarks. While the encouraging words are appreciated, something that always bothers me is being misunderstood. Understanding is, of course, a two-sided process and by asking the questions above I'm hoping to sort out why I was misunderstood (as I believe I was). My attitude all along has remained the same and I believe I have been open about it: Hilbert did some math associated with relativity and that deserves to be mentioned in the article without attributing him with priority for the theory, but in a manner that doesn't pull too much of the priority dispute into the article. Defending Einstein's priority seems to me to give too much credence to those that dispute it. Priority on this issue, in the long run, seems not to have been important to Hilbert and I don't think it is that important to this article. I believe my suggested version of the article is consistent with that attitude. It may still be too loose, be read as POV and need correction, but that's a different matter. In any event, any ambiguity was error/terseness on my part - and perhaps not understanding how much I was perceived at times as an un-scientific math bigot who thought Hilbert "did" General Relativity. I am not but believe I was quickly marked as such without much evidence. Reading my last comment on the talk page with that perception in mind I can see even IT is ambiguous. If, instead, you read it with my attitude as described above in mind (perhaps emphasizing "SOME credit" and change "think little more about it," to "think no more about it") you might better understand my intended meaning. While I could have been clearer in my intent throughout, the discussions would have been more productive had you commented something to the effect: "your suggestion appears to lean too much to the pro-Hilbert (or pro-Einsten - I am sometimes unclear about which you suggesting!) POV because...," leaving out my possible motivations until we (possibly) met an impasse about the content. I don't want to belabor these points, but if you spend more time with Wikipedia, you will likely (and unfortunately) find people that are even less conscientious about their writing than myself, who require a bit more patience and faith than even I require! But I will strive to be clearer/less ambiguous. I do hope we can whip this article into shape at some point! (John User:Jwy talk) 01:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome for the remarks. I will be glad to work with you in future. There are many problems. As you know that article was delisted, which was richly deserved and correct ruling, because it was basically trashed by incompetent editing. I don't know all the circumstances. If we work together again I trust next time matters will move more quickly and cooperatively, now that we are better acquainted. Thank you for your contributions. I have archived the prior discussion and will be attend some other things. (I'm writing an article). Until then. --Pie are round (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged. (You may not wish to use your first name, btw. Some wikicranks have gone so far as to locate other editors' real-world ID's and make legal threats to their employers.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Columbia

Please let us know your plans at Talk:Columbia before making major changes. In general, disambiguation pages are not alphabetical. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I was going to fix the poorly executed attempt at a hatnote for "British Columbia" at the top of the page (and in a fit of kindness to the Canadian patriot) decided to move up Canada a bit. But now (in a fit of pique), I'll let it be.TriniMuñoz (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't mean to upset you. Sorry if I did. The page is awkward (because there are so many uses), so improvements are welcome. But because it is complex, we need balance many things. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it! I correct other people's stuff and probably step on their toes too, but I did find it funny that my change was instantly challenged—you must be on-line as I am now—whereas the "see also: Colony of British Colombia," which could be so easily fixed, has been left there for several days. Anyway, there other more interesting things to edit. Take care!TriniMuñoz (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Magical Mystery Tour articles

Well for the Magical Mystery Tour talk page it's kind of a moot point because it's the top-most discussion. For other pages, I understand your point. The point of moving the tag down to where the section is is that the bot needs to know where to find the discussion, and I find the best way is to have the template in context so that there is no possibility of a transcription error; furthermore, it is simpler (people don't need to re-write the section header) and more clean-looking. Of course, the disadvantage is that people are much more used to {{move}} being at the top of the page. For the sake of a notice up top, I have created {{moveheader}}, an optional template for people to put on top of talk pages when a move discussion is taking place. —harej (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have also started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#An optional template to put on top of talk pages. —harej (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)