User talk:Rursus/archive/a-5

RTV

Hi. You might want to take a look at WP:RTV.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Why, I'm not going to vanish? I'm just walking around with the floor mop a little. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the interruption then. :)   — Jeff G. ツ 07:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Never mind! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Milky Way Arms

Hey Rursus, I recently saw your image called "Milky_Way_Arms.svg", I noticed that Samuel Arbesman made a variation of it at http://arbesman.net/milkyway/ .I think however that the planets, ... he added can be implemented in your original image too, this will make it clearer.

Finally, I also noticed your smiley-images. Perhaps that you are intrested in my idea on making an image for use either as a "AT-certified" logo or simply for nitrous oxide-devices (nitrous oxide is a emissionless fuel). The idea is mentioned at http://www.appropedia.org/User_talk:Chriswaterguy#.22AT_certified.22-logo However, for this, I do need help with the making of the new (Red John-inspired) smiley face. KVDP (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Milky_Way_Arms.svg and http://arbesman.net/milkyway/ (artwork by "arbesman at gmail dot com"): the images have different purposes, my is for depicting nature scientific data, his image is for applying a psychological-procedural model pattern to nature scientific data unaccessible for human procedures; I'm not enough proficient in sociology to say what might the purpose of this, but at the very least, the nodes that he choose for junctions seems arbitrary, and more a work of art (sources for inspiration, not demonstrating a principle) than factual information, and my interests are mainly factual, and the file Milky_Way_Arms.svg is for mediating factual information;

2. AT-certified logo: I can give some hints, as for using a bitmap/pixmap program, I suspect you're already using one, otherwise try the professional-quality GIMP, and for vectorizing programs try Inkscape. Inkscape has a facility for vectorizing pixmaps that can be used for converting the Red-John-Smiley-Face to SVG, and from Inkscape and SVG vector you can export bitmaps. As I'm not in certifications nor in psychology, I'm not the very least qualified in how to design it, my psychology interest and understanding solely regards human-to-human collaboration in organisations based on some elementary psychology courses and my experience in mostly dysfunctional organisations. Inkscape and GIMP are OpenSource/free/gratis. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

response to afd discussion

Sorry for not replying. I did not really have much to say, though I appreciate you shedding some light on the AfD process. At this point, I think I'll withdraw from the discussion, and we can quietly let the AfD expire. Perhaps it will inspire someone to improve the article. Considering my feelings on its existence, that person will not, unfortunately, be me. Also, the banner at the top of this page gave me a laugh. James McBride (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I think I overstressed the not-a-science-discussion point. The best place to discuss science to some extent is on:

1. our talk pages — as much as we wish to,
2. the talk pages of the articles — as far as it advances the articles, so that conflicting stand-points can be properly coexisting in the article texts,

the article-as-a-primary-topic and the surrounding policies constitute a very effective system that minimizes conflicts and enables construction of a coherent knowledge base, which is somewhat unique.

Secondly I see on your talk that you're a PhD and new Wikipedian, and we need such guys (among others) to create good articles and criticise the bad ones, so I took some time to explain about what this weird Wikipedia really is, and to mirror something about the inner workings here. Personally I'm a failed academic going from Maths/Science to CompSci to Society/Religion, so my personal experience deal with the nonscientific aspects of society, and how to orient and act in a system that cannot be understood by natural science solely. The philosophy of all human interaction and collaboration is pretty much an unknown/unresearched area, and my interest for know is how such a chaotic self-organized thingie like Wikipedia works: a mixture of writers' club and some irregular and minimalist kind of justice system.

If you have specific questions about how to do this and that, I might be able to give some specific rapid answers instead of pointing to this and that wikipedian policy. Ask and speak your mind when you wish! (The image at the top is intended to improve the humour of humankind by a wave of feeling well, propagating from you towards your neighbor, and that neighbor to the next one, hopefully...) Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep those points (and your generous offer!) in mind. As for me, I am not totally new, but most everything I have done thus far has been to develop new content or improve existing content, so I am unaware of certain parts of the behind the scenes workings of wikipedia. I should also note that I am not a PhD yet, just a PhD-in-training. James McBride (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I saw the list at your user page. Nice! And happy editing! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Obesity

I agree that Moses can be split off into other articles - note my RfC for a new article. If you consent to that discussion, that might help us trim some fat. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion in that talk page evades my understanding. You initially did the right thing, invoked WP:BOLD in an article that is not controversial, dropped some stuff in an article Moses as symbol in American history, which was a good thing, and then it was deleted, which prob also was a good thing, then there was some angry person calling you names for being WP:BOLD, which was not a good thing. Consider that an intermittent disturbance and be happy for the general result, don't cry for the lost trivia. I'll see what comment I can make to invoke some more WP:BOLDness... Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest, in particular? New article split, new title, revised focus, new sections, etc.? As I've found out, being bold can also cost a lot of wasted time. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually don't like the section Moses#References in literature very much, the article should instead treat Moses himself, mythological reflections in the religions where he matters, and historical theories about the emergence of the mythos. Moses in literature would be my first choice where to put References in literature, I actually think such an article could survive an AfD. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 21:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense on the surface. Yet when numerous citations from actual historical material, as opposed to "literature," were used to discuss his relevance to American history, it was deleted. It might also be hard to separate "literature" from "history" in many cases, as you can see from the link. "Literature" is a broad brush, where I assumed that the "symbolism" of Moses would be more focused, if supported. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see. Maybe the right way is to start by cleaning the section up and making it more coherent, and then, if the section doesn't shrink too much, spawn it as an article. I think the section Symbol in American history could be rewritten to not contain too many citations, but instead describe the theme of the symbol Moses constituted for the Americans. I would maybe, despite all, have voted no on an AfD on that article. The first votes use to determine what the other voters think, so regard it as a temporary unluck that it was deleted. The citations aren't good: they take too much space from the articles, so instead it would maybe be suitable to try to synthesize (not too much in risk of triggering WP:OR) a general theme, to add to the section/article to prepare for spawning. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 22:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I'll soon hibernate for some 8h. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 22:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

New topic on Moses

Any thoughts on the new proposal? So far the vote is unanimous, but more reviewers would help. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have commented your proposal here. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Good and valid points, so there are clearly things to consider. Thanks for the input. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Screech for help

I am sorry I cannot help. I prefer to respond on just one page to the work of the editor whose previous work on another page you find needs attention. Esoglou (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I saw your situation! Good luck to you in your future edits! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have seen your request on the Christianity Project page for input on the matter on which you appealed for help. I have also noted the lack of response to your request. That does not surprise me. I find that people by no means want to get involved with so vigorous and self-sure an editor as the one you have found yourself up against. You have seen that I myself did not have the stomach to come to your help. So you will have to decide whether it is worth your while carrying on the struggle alone, perhaps for many months. For my part, I have become involved, as you will have seen, in another section of the same article, and I have just a little hope, but no confidence, that those who have taken an interest in that part will not drop off almost immediately through discouragement. Esoglou (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

KaPOW!

Ah well, I think I made some impression, because of my volatile temper that tends to explode for two-or-more of the following reasons:

• illogics,
• deliberate misrepresentation and misinterpretation in order to prove own POV,
• discussion evasion, trying to deceive by tricks unrelated to facts and factuality.

The general quality of religious and philosophical articles is considerably lacking because of a lack of intellectual regime amongst adherents-here and adherents-there, and I deem illogics being one of the most important errors. Weren't Richard Dawkins himself exhibiting some unsound idiosyncratic reasoning of fringe-type, I would deem him correct in characterizing religion as essentially unsound. For more details, you have to email me. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

TFTT

(-: - DVdm (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

B welcome! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll use it. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Rursus/UBX tagged for deletion?

Hi. You tagged User:Rursus/UBX/Svenglish with db-u1, and I deleted it; but something is causing User:Rursus/UBX also to show up in CAT:UCSD, the list of user-pages tagged for deletion. It may be that the transcluded references to UBX/Svenglish are having that effect - try editing them out before someone deletes the page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Aye. It was me transcluding the page through the UBX template tl. Me clumsy! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

modalism

I am still unclear as to this. So I will try another approach in "theology" modalism refers to Sabellianism. [1] If you wish to reword the article to reflect this distinction. Please do as I was referring to the Modalism of Aquinas as much as Aristotle. As a metaphysical concept use to arrive at a single substance. However as an Eastern thing. In the case of both this ties to substance theory as part of the classical science method as well as scholasticism. Which as a goal of metaphysics is to reduce everything down to a single substance. Is there a time when say the term metaphysics went from not being Aristotle and then went strictly scientific. I mean your implying that Saul Kripke metaphysics are not the in same general ontology-category as Aristotle's? Please clarify.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please let me be frank. I can understand being disappointed in the content being treated as overly simplified and or overly generalized, if you will. The eastern approach to metaphysics (and the idea of substance theory) can best be understood through the use of modal logic toward (I know bad way to say it) -stochastics. This is why Taleb is attacking the (modal and scholastic) logic of the West in its interpretation of Philosophy. Taleb calls the distortion of Eastern, Greek logic- Opacity. I think it's called stochastic modal logic, yes? If this is poorly expressed forgive me and help me to properly express it. Since in the East there is forever a can't know as a by product of human finite and incompleteness.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No, your interpretation is hell wrong! Why don't you read the article modal logic?! You shouldn't claim anything like that if you knew what modal logic is about. Read the article on modal logic, for heavens sake if you are a real Christian, not just a POV affiniado!!

Seems you got my criticism wrong all the time, and that you don't grasp that my criticism regards wikipedia content. You're all the time discussing beside the point. The point is that the article Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences alleges that Modalism emerges from Modal logic invented by Aristotle, Plato and Pythagorus, therefore that, since Aristotle et al are pagans, that modal logic is pagan, and therefore that modalism is pagan. But that is blatantly false and incredibly misleading, especially since it uses false statements to attack the Roman Catholics – the false statements are:

• Aristotle, Plato and Pythagorus invented modal logic – false – Avicenna invented (maybe) some early temporal logic, the attachment of the term "modal logic" is modern and inspired by linguistics,
• Modal logic is the basis for modalism – false – modalism is independent,

What really really angers me is that false statements WP:OR are used in wikipedia for accusing Christians of a pagan connection by other Christians. That is not a Christian behavior. WP:OR bordering to WP:HOAX is in deep discord with Christian values. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your input at Joseph Smith, Jr.

Thanks. It's always nice to get another pair of eyeballs on an article. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Be welcome. IMHO, we need to evaluate the general states of the articles, more often, I think. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you have shown interest

I would like to expand the ontologism article. Since the Roman Catholics attack on it is seen in the East as an attack on intuitive consciousness.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course, just keep the sentences brief and try to find the "kernel" of the criticism, then the text can be evolved around that "kernel" without deterioration in intelligibility. I'll see if I can find better sources than that low quality 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, which is decidedly of the schismatic-minded First Vatican Council. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The definition and pro-con aspects:

• Encyclopædia Britannica, 2010
• questia.com: Ontologism
• Specimen Pages from the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas (of Aquinas), search for Ontologism and Kantism, this one is very good at precising a practical argument for and against Ontologism

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice on Moses

Since you commented on earlier discussions of this subject, you can hopefully add some input to this ANI on Moses. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're doing fine without me. The topic doesn't deserve a WP:ANI. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It was interesting that Glenn Beck and others made reference to Moses, i.e. U.S. Seal, "freedom," "law" etc. related to the rally. It seems backward that the material, all cited and of a notable subject, can be kept out by a single person. I'm willing to open up the discussion to restore this encyclopedic material with some support. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's interesting and not very pleasant. I made some changes requesting a few sources in the article of Jimmy Wales, having some interest in Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and his personal combination of Objectivism and OpenSource. First I was treated as a "vandal" when requesting a source, then my changes were called "disruptive" when I added a reference. Not very pleasant. I get the impression that the flat structure, the ad hoc organization, and the lack of authority by accomplishments results in an "encyclopedia" that ceases to develop beyond a quite inferior quality level. I'm currently quite inactive on Wikipedia, because of work, and because of a general disappointment on the lack of structure and order in the system. I'm starting to believe that WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are bad policies that must be moderated: there must be some original research, and I think that your survey is justified. I also thinks that there must be appointed judges in the system. However, you may instead consider Wikinfo or Wikisource instead of fighting self-styled "justice" makers. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

And Hello Again

I was hoping for your take on the Ousiology article here on wikipedia as it currently stands as you appear to have and interest in the subject. Maybe a redirect is in order? essentialism and especially metaphysical essentialism could use some input. I also need to find the proper way to express the modal or process of logic in the Catholic-Orthodox theological differences as it proper to it. This is called abstraction. Since this word just like contemplation and energeia have the wrong words and concepts attached to it in the West. I have abstained but I think it is critical to the article in order for the article be to be inline with for example, N. O. Lossky and V.V. Zenkovsky http://www.iep.utm.edu/russian/.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm on a vacation from Wikipedia, I'll take a pause for some time, before coming back. For now, I'll just answer messages and do spelling corrections, so I'll happily leave the analyzing for others, for a time yet. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Magalhãnica, Rubídea, and Palida

Your dubious star names - Magalhãnica (for α Cru), Rubídea (for γ Cru), Palida (for δ Cru), and Intrometida (for ε Cru)...

• See note-1 of Delta Crucis,
• See also note-1 of Epsilon Crucis,
• See also note and external link of the List of star names in Crux,
• And see also Bandeira do Brasil: Sobre as estrelas.

貴殿はご自分の預かり知らない星名を除去しているだけだが、私は出典のない記述を出典に基づいたものに改めている。ご自分でも少しは調べてみてはいかがかね。--Bay Flam (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I see! I erred. Thanks for notifying me. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Voegelin

You noted some valid criticisms of Voegelin's terminology (or ideas, even) over on the talk page [2]. I noticed that nothing happened there. I hereby recommend that you summarise and paraphrase them yourself, and insert them in the article. I would be happy to edit/go over it after you. Are you an anti-Voegelinite? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Eric Voegelin was born on a 3 january, which is my birth-day too (like JRR Tolkien's, Mel Gibson's and so on). However, his analysis of gnosticism was flawed, since it covers communism and nazism, anything that disagrees with his thinking. He was a catholic all his life, while I was/am in order:

1. atheist neopositivist and communist,
2. agnostic anarchist,
3. gnostic of the valentinian type, no ideology,
4. Lutheran of the broad-church liberal theologician type of a slight Lutheran-Orthodox inclination and another anabaptist.

I dismiss his "gnosticism" on the foundation that he didn't really understand its mechanics. I'm not anti-him, I just think he totally misunderstood it. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Tropical year

I answered a point you made in the tropical year discussion page Saros136 (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I rebutted. Have a nice day! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Since you're Swede, you'll probably know how Charlier's surname is pronounced. I am asking this, because Charlier is also quite common French/Belgian name. And if Swedish (aka Carl Charlier's surname) is pronounced differently then French surnames, this influences to some Slovene adjectives, derived from his surname, f.i. Charlier polynomials. TIA. --xJaM (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't know. It's a very uncommon surname. I would guess [ʃaɾliːɾ] or [ʃaɾlieːɾ]. Swedes generally try to match the foreign pronunciation with native sounds, so it's probable the Swedish would try something like the mentioned pronunciations that are quite unswedish. A pure Swedish pronunciation would be [ʃɒᵃɭɪjəɾ] or [ɧɒᵃɭɪjəɾ] but it would also be met with a general ridicule for being barbarian. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Tau Hydrae, aka Ukdah

Hello from an Englishman in Portugal. Unlike those Portuguese names for stars in Crux mentioned above, which are not used in English & which I recently removed from the list, 'Ukdah' does strike me as traditional for Tau Hydrae. And indeed it's still there in the article if you look hard enough! If you google the name, there is a site in Portuguese (again...) that includes it (I'm too lazy to copy out the URL, but it's netlog.com). So I don't think it's fake & see no harm in having it in the main text of the article. Rothorpe (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

'Ukdah' for τ Hya is probably incorrect. There's an Okda (α Psc) in Pisces (Allen 1889) also supported by Antonín Bečvář, Atlas of the Heavens Catalogue part II 1950, and Kostjuk 2002. Also see List of Arabic star names. Putting a star name on the wrong star was very much the typical modus operandi for the desinformer User:Richontaban who performed a disruptive star name invention career a few years ago, see my user page. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Lost and Misplaced Names, I see! Indeed, I was reminded of 'Okda'. Thanks for the informative reply! Rothorpe (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC) - Even so, there is still the mystery of the Portuguese site, [3], which gives names for Beta & Gamma, too. Looks quite professional. Doesn't mean the names are used in English, though. Rothorpe (talk) 00:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably a mixed copy of Wikipedia info, the fake star name Dhanab al Shuja is also there. The aforementioned star name inventor was smart enough to combine the "proper" Arabic stems such as "Al Shujāʽ" (Allen) with "Dhanab" (the tail). The invented star name is reasonable. Nevertheless it is not attested, and the smart invention of a desinformer. See Islamic Crescent specifically (Hydra) for the tail of Hydra according to what arabs (Al Sufi) probably said. "Dhanab al Shuja" must be attested somewhere, then the star names may be real, and can be readded. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for all the details. Rothorpe (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

So are you still not going to help me on the Roman Catholic - Eastern Orthodox theological differences?

I thought you where over the whole mad thing about this and where going to come back? I still need help. Here is an article that covers the same thing and is an overview it is from Oxford Press. [4] LoveMonkey (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm back. I take it seriously, and I'm going to help you. Thanks for the nice link, anyways. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Lavrenti Beria

I noticed you'd previously edited the talk page of this article not too long ago. I'm trying to establish a consensus on how to deal with the sexual assault section. I think the version as it stands now is extremely factual and also based on the most up to date research on the subject, but I'm some flack and a lot of drive-by reversions from Beria fans. Mind taking a look and leaving a comment on the talk page? Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Fake star names

You might want to have a look at the contributions from this guy, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/199.44.190.11. I've found one bogus star name he added back in Dec 2006 and there might be more. Skeptic2 (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes thanks! That will be a pleasure! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Starting an investigation HERE.

I found more star names from the infamous User:Richontaban/168.223.11.X desinformer, it's the only true desinformer I've found so far regarding star names. But the link you provided will be a good start for making another fake starname cleanup. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you need help sorting this out? I have a copy of Burnham's celestial handbook which can verify much of this information..... Sailsbystars (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I can manage by the 10 sources I have in my private database, but am grateful for any helping hand, my notes and links to 4 of those databases are on my desinfo list. The major part, the User:Richontaban fake star names, is already done. The major current tasks are to

• firstly check and revert where needed the Template:Stars of (constellation) – the "Possible misconceptions" list – where needed also lookup the stars having those dubious names,
• secondly to review and analyse stars where needed from User:Ilvon's hunting list on my desinfo list.

If the desinfo list is too confused, I'll be back in a couple of days anyways, just remember that 70% of the cleanup job is already done - there are a few dubious star names remaining, and there are a couple of inexperienced/immature guys slowly reverting my changes back so that the fake star names return. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Righto. I plan on going through your table(s) and checking to make sure bogus names are properly purged from WP (since they often get propogated across multiple articles). Sailsbystars (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Sociology Newsletter: III (December 2010)

Sociology Project • News • December 2010
Spreading the meme since August 2006
The Sociology WikiProject third newsletter is out! According to our April mini-census, we have 15 active members, 6 semi-active ones and 45 inactive. Out of those, 4 active, 3 semi-active and 1 inactive members have added themselves to corresponding categories since the mini-census. The next one is planned, roughly, for sometime next year. The membership list has been kept since 2004. On that note, nobody has ever studied WikiProjects from the sociological perspective... if you are interesting in researching Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Research and wiki-research-l listerv. Moving from research to teaching, did you know that many teachers and instructors are teaching classes with Wikipedia? This idea is getting support from the Wikimedia Foundation, and some really useful tools have been created recently. I have experience with that, having taught several undergad classes, so feel free to ask me questions on that! And as long as I am talking about professional issues, if any of you is going to any sociological conferences, do post that to our project - perhaps other members are going there too? In other news: the a automated to do listing reported in the April issue went down shortly afterwards, but seems to be on the path to reactivation. We still have an active tag and assess project, and comparing the numbers to the April report, we have identified about 350 more sociology-related articles (from 1,800 to 2,150) and assessed about 100 (from 1,300 to 1,400). We now have a listing of most popular sociology-related pages. It is updated on the 1st of every month, starting with August, and reports which of our sociology-tagged articles are most frequently read. Of course, GIGO holds true, so after looking at it right now and trying to determine what is our most popular article, my first action was to shake my head and remove Criminal Minds (which, perhaps not too surprisingly, outranks all sociology articles in period tested). Second item I noticed it this month's Industrial Revolution, beating Criminal Minds, that moved from close to 30th position in August/September, to 9th in October and 2nd in November. If you'd like to discuss this or any other trends, please visit WT:SOCIOLOGY! Finally, with the reactivation of Article Alerts, we are getting our own here. Bookmark that page so you can keep track of sociology related deletion debates, move debates, good and feature article discussions, and more. Our first task force (Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology/Social movements task force) was created (1 June 2010). If you have basic or better graphic skills, our projects needs a dedicated barnstar (award) (currently the closest we can get is the Society Barnstar. As always, I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions.
Authored by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC) You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a recipient of WikiProject Sociology Newsletter (Opt-out).

Constellations Task Force activity

Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the astronomy-related WikiProjects, changes have been made to the list of members of the Constellations taskforce of WikiProject Astronomy. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this task force, it would be appreciated if you would please edit the list so that your name is moved to the 'active users' section - thus a clearer idea of the number of active editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Astronomy at 16:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC).

 Done Done! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was married to a Romanian and then became fascinated by Balkans, yes, maybe, though I'm no expert. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I was married to one too :-) No need to be expert. There are so many tasks at hand, besides adding actual historical articles. We are at the beginning of the project and many articles are in stub state. Regards. --Codrin.B (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Delta Aurigae

Hi, w.r.t these two edits: why "alleged"? I find, under "प्रजापति" (which is actually "Prajāpati", not "Praja-pāti" as Allen wrote), in the Monier-Williams Sanskrit dictionary, the definition "a partic. star , δ Aurigae [Su1ryas]." Because the 'alleged' I'm unsure, so just asking you in case you know more. :-) Cheers, Shreevatsa (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Allen is not quite reliable as a source. Your source might be independent, and then the issue comes into another light. Thank you for that link! We might consider using it as a source also, and change the text back to the original version. My critical attitude is just an effect of hunting down regular fake star names provided by some inventive editor some 3-4 years ago. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done I used your source in the article, and renamed to Prajāpati, the source should suffice for the most critical eyes. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's cleared up! Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Sexual intercourse#In Christianity

Hello, Rursus. Would you mind weighing in on the above linked discussion regarding an edit you made to the Sexual intercourse article? Flyer22 (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)