User talk:Noosphere/Archive 3

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.

Deletion of Bush impeachment AfD materials

Actually, no, I can't explain how those paragraphs were deleted. As you can see I made two edits in the same server minute and in the second (where the items were deleted) I only intended to add a query on a sentence. If I somehow caused the deletion to happen, I apologize--it wasn't intentional. Anyway I see the material is back. -- Cecropia 06:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT

I would be carefull with WP:POINT. KimvdLinde 23:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you well

Nice. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

;) -- noosph e re 23:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

Hello, noosphere. Please explain what philosophy is in your point of view. Then, let's debate on it. I'll explain the term from Indonesian's point of view. Please explain it in the Indonesian Philosophy discussion part, ok? Best wishes.FHidayat 05:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template variables

Okay, this is how variables in templates are handled (I couldn't find a good explanation of this on short notice, so maybe this should later be posted somewhere...):

In the template, variables are defined by using three curly brackets around the variable name. Consider this example (let's call it Template:ilikeu:

Hello, {{{user}}}, I like you. Cheers, {{{otheruser}}}.

So if you would post {{ilikeu|user=Foo|otheruser=Bar}}, it would come out as

Hello, Foo, I like you. Cheers, Bar.

If you would post {{ilikeu|otheruser=Bar|user=Foo}}, it would still come out as

Hello, Foo, I like you. Cheers, Bar.

These names can be anything, although I think they may not contain spaces and some other special characters.

For simple templates this is a bit complicated, so you can use numbers as "anonymous" identifiers. let's say Template:ilikeu2 would look like this:

Hello, {{{1}}}, I like you too. Cheers, {{{2}}}.

Then, if you would post {{ilikeu2|Foo|Bar}}, it would come out as

Hello, Foo, I like you too. Cheers, Bar.

HOWEVER, if you post {{ilikeu2|Bar|Foo}}, it would come out as

Hello, Bar, I like you too. Cheers, Foo.

So, the first parameter is used as "1", the second as "2", and so on. The "trick" I used is that we need a variable name, but the template uses the anonymous form. But, using the number like a variable still works!

Things I've yet to try out: What happens when the two forms are mixed? Can the order be changed when using {{illikeu2|2=Bar|1=Foo}}? But these are mostly academic, since it's just bad style to build templates and calls like this.

Hope I could clear some things up.

-- grm_wnr Esc 23:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That does help a lot. Thank you! -- noosph e re 23:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiethics, here we go again! Yaaaay!

Yes, I realized the move and self reverted and provided a link to that already established discussion. The way things are going it doesn't appear as though Resid Gulerdem will remain unblocked for long. He hasn't been following the advice of his mentor User:Johntex and is just going back to his old ways that previously saw him blocked. Netscott 08:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as long as he sticks to deleting comments in his userspace he's not going to get blocked. But once he turns his attention to the rest of Wikipedia and violates policy there it might be an entirely different story. -- noosph e re 09:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup

Goodnight, my dear. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

Due to the deadlock on the article and the seeming lack of possibilities to move beyond it, and due to the grotesquely long-standing nature of the dispute, I have requested arbitration regarding the election controversy article. Phil Sandifer 06:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, Phil. -- noosph e re 06:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you noted that I wrote a misleading edit summary. Yes, I did, and that was an accident because I did not realize that I had entered the history and made the edit from there. (At the time, the actual RFAr page was not running properly, but I did not comprehend the detour I had taken!) Thanks for pointing this out and excuse my stupidity. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I apologize for the mishap. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 02:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey there. Goofing around with Prefixindex and saw this -- did you develop it yourself? Also wanted to ask your permission to work off of your {{User:Noosphere/welcome}} and {{User:Noosphere/welcomeip}} templates in developing my own versions. Finally, just wanted to let you know I created my first system-wide template -- {{SpellCheck}} (and {{SpellCheck-n}}). Let me know what you think, but I'm kinda proud of them. (There was this guy who kept submitting these submissions to an article that were fact-rich but full of misspellings ... wanted to send him a note but a friendly one, thus was the template born.) — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 17:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wrote that evidence template generator script. Recently I also wrote another set of scripts to convert regular external links to citation templates like {{cite news}} and {{cite web}}. I haven't had a chance to upload them yet, though... and they're not completely bug free. Also, I think I need to update the cabal evidence template generator, because the template has changed.

Your spellcheck template looks good. Hopefully people won't take that kind of warning too personally. :) -- noosph e re 17:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I've already given one a test run -- with the particular person that prompted the idea. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 18:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and you're welcome to use those welcome templates of mine. I think I copied them off here anyway. -- noosph e re 17:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 18:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, even though you are about to be steamrolled

I think it's a shame that I have to remain anonymous, too, but I've been too close to arbitration and I don't relish being honest with Fred about what could easily happen to me under my registered account at any point in the future. I've been sitting on the sidelines for a while, watching Fred's leadership in "POV-pushing" arbcom cases, and the more I read going back through the last year, the more I think that there is too much banning and not enough mediation. And you, Ryan, and the other 2004 Election Irregularity editors opposed to Phil look like you're about to be banned in a Fred-led landslide.

If I were you I would real quick personally ask all seven of the US-based Wikipedia:Wikiproject Politics#Participants to volunteer to mediate, by email if they have an address or on their talk page if they don't. Because if a volunteer mediator isn't forthcoming, then I predict there's a 95% chance that everyone but Phil gets banned from those articles. 71.132.151.14 09:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

status of election irrgularities

You seem to be doing a lot of work on the election irregularity article. When is the POV tag going to be removed? Its there for no valid reason. What are the prospects of arbcom? I can't believe the fuzz over this article. Albester 21:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I expect the tag will never be removed... or not permanently. I agree it's not there for a valid reason, but all sorts of things get done on Wikipedia for no valid reason. And when you happen to have powerful allies what you say goes, rules be damned.

I don't know how the arbcom case is going to fare. I don't know any of the arbitrators, and none of them have spoken up on the matter except Fred. This is also my first arbcom case, so I really don't know what to expect. However, most of the indications I have are that it's not going to go well for the accused, no matter what we say.

Still, who knows? Arbcom might make a fair ruling despite all the gloom and doom prognostications I've been hearing. -- noosph e re 21:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Sandifer

FYI. [...] [1]. Editorializing and opinion withheld. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. -- noosph e re 22:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I removed the link I placed here to 'wikipediareview' - since it's an off-site critique of Phil, it's not really fair to him to broadcast it here on WP. I removed similar links from my own home page. No harm, no foul and thanks! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Feel A Little Proud ...

... how often does one make a single change that gets propagated in several thousand Wikipedia articles? Check it out. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 14:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Keep up the good work! -- noosph e re 16:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up ...

Hey, Noosphere. Just a heads-up. If you want to talk privately, you've got my e-mail address. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 03:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

election evidence

What's up man. If I'm not mistaken, you deleted my paragraph refuting the mainstream notability on the election arbitration evidence page... why did you do that? :) --kizzle 19:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did? It must have been an accident. I'm not aware of deleting anything by anyone else on the arbitration evidence page. Sorry if I did. Can you show me a diff? -- noosph e re 19:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what? I'm an idiot. I mistakenly thought the evidence talk page was the evidence project page and couldn't find my shit, then I saw your edit where you said deleted and moved to workshop so I thought you moved it rather than the much more plausible explanation that I'm retarded. --kizzle 19:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe... no worries. :) -- noosph e re 19:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for speaking up, by the way. I have a feeling we're going to need all the support we can get. -- noosph e re 19:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. --kizzle 19:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on process in the Election case

Hi, I responded to your comments on arbitration process. If you want any help in drafting alternative proposals and so on, just ask and I'll provide neutral advice and help. In particular if some of the drafted proposals are directly refuted by evidence submitted, please let me know and I'll ensure that the arbitrators' attention is drawn to this. --Tony Sidaway 20:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the offer, Tony. I guess you could draw their attention to how their one-sentence characterization of Ryan's and my position as "[supporting] Kevin baas in defense of the current state of the articles under dispute" is a trivialization and mischaracterization. It completely ignores virtually everything we've put on the evidence and workshop page. If you could draw their attention to this fact, I would appreciate it. -- noosph e re 20:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could also bring the new proposals I've put on the Workshop page to their attention. Thank you again. -- noosph e re 21:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfM w/Phil

I have requested mediation w/Phil: ~~Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#RfM_w.2FPhil_Sandifer~~Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation. I imagine you would like to be involved. Kevin Baas^talk 22:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Thanks. Is there something I should do to confirm my participation? -- noosph e re 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would just drop a line on the request saying that you are interested in mediating w/Phil. Kevin Baas^talk 22:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevin Baas (talk • contribs) .

regarding rigged election arbcom case

Wow, you guys are really taking it up the yazoo over there. Too bad you didn't have a good logician around earlier on. The logic is full of holes. Say, want me to go shoot something up fer ya?

I think its pretty apparent that what we have here is a case of pov warrior admins. And Republican Logic, which is always fallacious logic except for when it isn't which isn't often. The crux of the case, and the point i tried to make and which i would have thought you folks would have picked up on:

The loophole "notable group" renders the sources cited function to be citing those sources which compose the group. The essential push here is to make you unable to use any source thats not republican. You can show that the sources they want you to site are republican, and then you can show that in fact, since it is a factual article about a factual movement what is relevant is that groups factual arguments, not the illogic attempt to ban non republican sources by naming them as not notable.

Well, I don't want to speculate on their motives and want to AGF. However, it's clear that the same notability standard has to be applied across the board. Not just to the sources they don't like. Also, it should be noted that many of the claims in the article are backed up by numerous (sometimes up to six) sources. Therefore many of the less than "mainstream media" sources are corroborated by other sources, which should give them more credibility. Unfortunately no arbitrator has event attempted to address this fact. -- noosph e re 04:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't using an equal standard, in fact the standard they expect us to use is that we cite only republican owned and operated sources.

"Mainstream" media in this case basically does mean that, as almost all "mainstream" media are owned and operated now by republicans. No arbiter will adress the fact of multiple sources cited, the idea here isn't to give the game a fair shake. If there is an arbiter involved in the case with a conscience, then we should focus on making that point. So far what they have is only in essence a movement to exclude evidence based on (their own) extreme predjudice, and any neutral court would have thrown out this case in your favor. Prometheuspan 17:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, too few people payed attention when i made that argument vs merecat, and now you didn't have it handy to make to defend the situation you have now. What we do have tho is the good start of an overall campaign against admin abuse. I have a lengthy report sitting on Jimbos desk, I hope you will take a look at it and think about it.

Wikipedia has become abusive, and it is now infiltrated at even the arbitrator levels with pov warriors who are gaming the system to do whatever they decide to do, neutrality be damned. Its time to make a big noise about this, both to save Wikipedia if that is possible, and to "win" in any way that has meaning. If not, maybe its time some of us wised up and started an encyclopedia not based on innocent utopian rules and thus pov warrior mob and pack psychology. Let me know whats on your mind and if you would like me to shred a page or five worth of bad logic for ya. Prometheuspan 03:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I really don't have the time or energy to participate in any kind of campaign on Wikipedia right now. I'm swamped with real-life work as it is, and keeping up with this arbcom case is just about all I can handle right now. But good luck on improving Wikipedia. -- noosph e re 04:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I on the other hand have eight hour days to devote to the pursuits of my choosing. AFG is rediculous when any cogent analysis of the facts demonstrates Bad faith, gaming the system, straw man arguments, excluded middles, fallacious set theory, ad hominem arguments, and etc. However, thats three votes in favor of "stay chill." Heres your copy of my exchange with Ryan. It answers the above answers.

I appreciate you reaching out to help - but I think it should play out as it is (without any more attacks on anyone's views, whether Democrats or Republicans)... and let the words and actions of all involved speak for themselves. If this day does not end well, there's always tomorrow. Thanks, though. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I won't move on this without a green light from those involved, but the fact is whats really going on here is censorship. The facts do speak plainly for themselves in this case, and the elections were in fact rigged. The only way the republicans can win this debate is by finding ways to limit evidence. There are two primary means they use, the first is to attack a single source as being not notable or dependable. This is usually followed by the apeal to use mainstream sources. Thats appeal ad populum, plus excluded middle, and ad hominem. The sources they request that we use are biased as they are owned and operated by republican interests. This is information control and information warring. The idea here is to invalidate a source itself. Nevermind the facts of the information which the source brings to bear. The second method is to limit the number of cites, or the size of the articles, such that the facts again don't have the space to speak for themselves. Which goes against the policy "not paper". (Where is that?) In both cases the problem is that we have pov warriors on the arbitration committee, and i don't think thats a situation that warrants sitting around over. I think its time to get mad at the injustice and abuse of it all, and to make a big noise. Let me know if you come around to my way of seeing things. Prometheuspan 17:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Q.E.D.

Logic Logical argument Rigour Causality Necessary and sufficient conditions Logical fallacy Fallacy Validity Soundness Logical consequence Psychology Sociology Political science Anthropology Groupthink False consensus effect List of cognitive biases Conformity (psychology) Herding instinct Herd behavior Collective hysteria Crowd psychology Stupidity Pack (canine) [2] Pack Psychology Argumentum ad populum Propaganda News propaganda Spin (public relations) Trolling Internet troll Troll-friendly Evolution Natural selection Wikipedia:Requests for adminship Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures Prometheuspan 20:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Prometheuspan" = "The Original Trickster"? Please don't be offended but Prometheuspan, are you a sock? If so, whose? Please be honest. And frankly, I don't appreciate attacks on Republicans made in such disrespectful ways. Please be civil. Whether Dem or Rep, all are Americans and in order to do what's best for us all, we shouldn't make it about 'us and them'. Rep's want fair elections too, so the 'noise' should be about electoral reform and factual assessment of the electoral irregularities... not a noisy condemnation of a group of people on the basis of their political outlook. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am not the only one, look we have a mutual friend now. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to find it laughable that i am accused of being a sock.

What would you like, what proof can i offer? I think that it is important to condemn a group of people whos basis of understanding reality is based on what they are spoon fed from propagandists. There are two types of republicans, the patently evil, and the ignorant. Why would the republicans want fair elections? Its their guysthat got all the extra seats and the white house? What did any of that have to do with the QED? Whateva. Prometheuspan 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to convince people to break the rules. Causing a 'ruckus' on Wikipedia is what trolls do. Convince them with your argument. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, thats what i thought i was doing with QED. Its a good argument. Like all good arguments on wikipedia, its being ignored.

Thats not surprising, whats surprising is, its being ignored by the people who ought to be behind it. Prometheuspan 02:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an argument. I see a long list of links, many of them pejorative. That's not going to convince anyone. -- noosph e re 04:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheuspan, even if you're right about the propagandists on Wikipedia (and I must admit there's more than a hint of truth to that), I think you should carefully re-read Wikipedia's policies (particularly AGF) and take a closer look at how things are decided here. I think you'll quickly find that complaining about people's motivations, political alignments, or characters will get you absolutely nowhere, at best. There are smarter ways of improving Wikipedia than provoking a flamewar. -- noosph e re 02:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at AGF quite a lot actually, and, the quest to assume good faith is a good one, a fine basic first principle on which to base an effort such as this. However, nobody is going to compel me to doublethink; if somebody is demonstrably operating in bad faith, we should face reality, not get kicked repeatedly in the shins and pretend it isn't happening.

Well, if you can demonstrate that some of these people are acting in bad faith then it would be a different story. However, you may find that exceedingly difficult considering the political structure of Wikipedia (unless they're flagrant abusers with no regard for the rules and no sympathy from aforementioned power structure). -- noosph e re 04:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am hardly proposing a flamewar in any case. In fact, what i am proposing is a campaign to fix wikipedia so that it is no longer patently abusive. I'd think that with as much abuse as you guys have been through lately, you'd be behind that. Unless rexes essential premise was correct; If this is a pov pushing cabal, then actually fixing the problems would be cross agenda. Otherwise, we are on the same "side" or team here, combating pov warring. I think you let rex and zero stir you up or sumthin.Prometheuspan 02:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, improving Wikipedia is a very noble goal, and I wish all the best to anyone who pursues it. But if you want to be effective you may want to tone down your rhetoric, gather a lot of evidence and a good number of powerful allies first.

And I don't think I've let rex and zero stir me up in the least. I've hardly had any interaction with zero, and rex is (thankfully) only allowed to be a minor annoyance at the moment, without any real power (unlike some of the others who worry me quite a bit more). That's not why I haven't supported your actions.

Like I said, I first and foremost just don't have the time for anything more than keeping up with the arbcom case. Second, I think you're just being way too agressive. And that isn't going to convince anyone.

Sorry to be so blunt, but that's how I honestly feel. And even though I appreciate your sympathy towards our arbcom case, and while I myself have sympathy with some of what you're trying to accomplish (though I'm not entirely clear on exactly what form that would take or who exactly would be your targets), I just think by being so agressive you're doing yourself, your cause, and everyone who supports you more harm than good. I suggest taking some deep breaths, and thinking very carefully what such agressive accusations are likely to accomplish, without a lot of evidence and powerful Wikipedians to back them up.

Like I said, I think there are much smarter ways to go about improving Wikipedia. And a kamikaze attack is not one of them. Sorry. -- noosph e re 04:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A kamikazee attack is not what i proposed. Apparently, you folks have been brained enough to think that you have no power to act and no recourse. I am talking about operating within the framework of the rules, possibly near the line of what they allow, but not beyond it. Whatever else you may think i was meaning was probably mostly in your own mind. Take another look at QED.

If you read the materials and follow the string, the reality is i have created a flawless argument without ever making a single assertation myself, other than the order of the string.

If thats not sufficient genius to at least warrant applause from you folks, then i don't know what will. Prometheuspan 18:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no argument there. Just a string of links. Do you really expect us to read every one of those dozens of articles starting with the one on logic and then applaud your genius? You must be trolling. -- noosph e re 18:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messed up your indents

Sorry noo! Hope you're enjoying a lovely not-quite-the-start-of-summertime. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My indents!!! How dare you! ;) Nah, I don't care. :) Nothing that can't be fixed... and yeah, I am enjoying the improvement in the weather, but am spending far too much time in front of the machine. I'm looking forward to getting this case behind me, whatever happens. How's your summer going? -- noosph e re 05:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, speaking of vandalism, thanks for reverting the guy who vandalized my user page. Much appreciated. -- noosph e re 05:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. It's lovely - nice long stretch at the beach house coming up. Wireless coverage apparently extends all the way to the beach this year, which is a bad sign. I will probably drown my cellphone to avoid checking in on contentious edit spats when I should be soaking the sun and pondering "whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me." :) I'll post a few pics from last year when I get time. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds really nice. Have a great time! -- noosph e re 05:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Coulter poll

Hi, you have participated in Ann Coulter discussions in the past, please see here to cast your thoughts about whether Ann Coulter should be described as a "civil rights advocate" in the intro. --kizzle 07:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]