This is an archive of past discussions about User:Samsara. 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.
I am not sure that you are not too advanced and moi, too newby, not to drive you nuts, but at least I am glad to be adopted by a biology maven.
Caroldermoid: t/c
--caroldermoid 23:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
PS I did that signature with t/c by copying someone else above, but I still have not figured out how to save the thing! DOH!
Huh, are you serious ??? penetrating fluid has nothing to do with sexual practices it is a light oil used to free sticking components ! see http://www.google.com/search?q=penetrating+fluid I chose the name because I have a can on my desk and it seemed very appropriate to what I was trying to do in unsticking the wiki feud. I have tried to be a good editor and have corrected numerous factual errors but this is the last straw, don't unblock me, I give up.
Hi. This user sent a complaint in to unblock-en-l regarding the block. I am also familiar with "penetrating fluid" and "penetrating oil" in the mechanical / engineering sense (see penetrating oil); these are legitimate technical terms with no sexual connotation. They aren't trademarks; they're generic terms for that class of oil or lubricant. I've also never heard of them being used as sexual slang. I believe that your justification here is in error; please consider unblocking the user. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert21:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Since you're clearly a member in good standing, I will trust your judgement in this. I'll still contend that "penetrating oil" would have been less problematic than "Fluid", especially capitalised, and that it's not the best idea to create a new account to then engage in a dispute, whether as mediator or combatant. This always sets alarm bells ringing, with good reason. I still think the user should consider opening a new account, especially since this one so far has only one edit, and so it's going to cause less upheaval than changing it later on. I'll leave it up to you to redirect penetrating fluid. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Because it is Penetrating Fluid in the U.K. and Penetrating Oil in the good ole USA where I guess in the Mid West there are some who might actually think it is a sexual practice. You blocked my name out of ignorance of it's meaning. When I objected tou didn't bother to follow the Google link and find out it's meaning. You jumped to the incorrect assumption that it was a trademark. Now you are in danger of introducing a US bias against us Brits. Honestly do you think you are fit to be an administrator ?
How am I supposed to create an account when my IP is blocked ?
Would it be acceptable to everyone if you unblock User:Penetrating Fluid at least temporarily to allow them to make a Wikipedia:Changing username request and have it acted on? Would "Penetrating Oil" be an acceptable username from your point of view? (I don't know if that's what the user will want, but it's a random attemptedly helpful suggestion...). Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert23:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is internationally visible, including to people not familiar with penetrating oil (such as myself prior to this exchange) and so a username avoiding that phrase would be preferable. I also don't see the need for the account to be transferred to a new name, since the account has only a single edit. From Wikipedia:Changing username "alternatives are strongly encouraged." - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I repeat, you censored a perfectly innocent name because you were ignorant of it and made a false assumption. Now you want to protect others who may also be as ignorant and make the same false assumptions. Isn't the point of Wiki to educate people not to protect their ignorance. Furthermore the percieved offence is only in your (or their) mind, thus you are censoring something that is purely of your own invention. If their must be censorship (and I personaly have problems with it in any form) shouldn't it not be restricted to reality in some way.
If you wish to discuss policy, you'll find more fertile places than my talk page, such as the talk pages of whichever policies you take issue with. If, however, it annoys you that I am a thinking being, I apologise and will instantly fall to dust at your behest. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not wish to discuss policy, I have read the guidelines, nowhere does it say a user can be banned because their name is offensive only in the imagination if an administrator. And I do not want you to 'fall to dust' I merely want you to correct a mistake. It seems you are taking this personally and I assume that is why you are being so pig-headed, please try to be objective.
I'm not taking it personally, and I'm not being pig-headed. If you log out and refrain from editing for a day, the autoblock will expire, and you can register a new account. Many thanks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, if you believe that you are in the right then please have the courage of your convictions and complete my article on penetrating fluid Penetrating_fluid If you are willing to put to your money where your mouth is so to speak I shall bow to your better judgement and drop my fight against unjust censorship. If it a term of offence it should be noted as such in the wiki and I should be censored, if it isn't I should be unbanned.
I contend that most people seeing the username would know instantly what it means and think "hey that's a cool name". And OK perhaps a small childish minority a la Beavis & Butthead would think "hee hee that sounds a bit rude". But I cannot imagine who on earth would be offended by it ? tell me honestly were you really offended ?
It's not my job to be offended. I judged the username to be potentially offensive and have therefore asked you to register a new name. Will you comply, or is this whole discussion going to be a waste of your time? My decision stands, has been made public on the ANI noticeboard and has not been criticised. The chance that it will be withdrawn is infinitesimally small. Please comply with my suggestion or make an official complaint. You can, of course, continue to post messages to my talk page, but you may find that they will get removed if this becomes excessive. I feel that I have discussed the matter with you patiently and in sufficient length. Please register a new account instead. If you wish to ask about the suitability of a given username before you register, feel free to ask me or other admins, or use the IRC channels. Thank you. Yours in hope, Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
n.n
I just wanted to stop by and say "Thank you" for the kind post to my talkpage. I really appreciated it! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 00:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Stebbins
He had a son called Robert who was living in Corvallis, Oregon at the time of his death; I'm pretty sure the obit would have mentioned if he was a notable zoologist or sociologist. It looks to me like a coincidence. However he could be Robert (Bob) L. Stebbins from the Department of Horticulture Oregon State University; but there's no way to confirm it; and there isn't much info around on him.--Peta02:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Good shot. That would lend some substance to my other suspicion - Robert L. Stebbins is active as a reviewer on amazon [2] (albeit, curiously, on the Canadian site). Another member of the Amazon community is another biologist, one J. Michael Stebbins [3], who is a published book author. [4] He's the right age to be a grandson. It would be really nice if we could somehow unravel this. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Mabye the biography will have some more detail on his family when it comes out. I wouldn't bet on it though, family doesn't appear to rate highly in most of the science biographies that I have read. I find it curious that someone would fail to mention that they were the son or grandson of prominent scientist X.--Peta02:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I am going to have a guess, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you have an erotic fascination for the dead pope? --liquidGhoul11:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
(2 edit conflicts)There is a big problem with this, and has occured (I am sure to a lesser extent) on Frog. Articles which are commonly viewed display the symptoms. I have to stay committed to pretty much reverting everything which is added there. Vandalism is quickly removed, but anything which has good intentions, people are less willing to remove.
I thoroughly sympathise. When I look back on my contributions, a lot of them seem to be either holding the line against vandalism, or else starting stubs off. It takes time and a very clear head to really polish an article. I should do it more often. Let me know if I can be any help to you in this noble aim, which we should all care more about than we do. --Guinnog11:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This is something which I think stable solutions could part solve, though I would only like a software solution for it. We also need to encourage people to stand up for good prose. There may be more "discussions", but we can't just let an article degrade. If someone makes an article worse, then revert it and ask them to explain the changes on the talk page. As for the Ubuntu (sp?) article, I recommend you revert it to the article it was featured with, and if there are any good changes, reinstate them. Otherwise, leave them out. But I also recommend you get a few people to watch the talk page first (e.g. Tony, Peta, Guinnog, me etc.), so we can help if there is anyone who doesn't know what they are talking about wanting to argue the point. Thanks --liquidGhoul11:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This is not an attack on anyone, and I am aware of WP:U. Also, did you mean to put that comment on the talk page for my address instead? 192.75.48.15017:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I was confused. I had noticed that other templates where improperly named in the category, and didn't understand how the PAGENAME tag worked. Got it now, thanks. jugander (t) 20:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Rosalind Franklin
Thanks very much. I have put a lot of work into the article. There's probably a lot that could be improved though. Alun11:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see the problem. You see a tag that "this page is inactive" as some sort of attack on the page, whereas in fact it is simply an indication that, well, the page is inactive. Indeed, that page you wrote has had zero talk page activity ever, and no activity on the page itself for over a month, and was almost entirely the work of a single person. I'd say "inactive" is a fair classification. >Radiant<14:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Try making a positive contribution instead of making snide remarks. Pot and kettle, you know. I would suggest that you request community feedback on your proposal, e.g. at the village pump. >Radiant<14:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Favour
Hi. I know from our previous unhappy interacion over the Bad Nenndorf affair that your German is better than mine. If you have a chance, I wonder if you could review my edits of Sepp Kerschbaumer. Most of what I added there came from my translation of the :de article, and there were bits I wasn't sure about and left out. (There were also bits I left out deliberately as being too verbose.) Be grateful if you could have a look. Best wishes --Guinnog21:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree it doesn't look particularly good unless it could be referenced. I wonder about the naming of the places in the article too; it's a nice question whether we should use the German or Italian versions in a story about a Tyrolian nationalist in a part of modern Italy which used to belong to Austria. --Guinnog10:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Question from your Adoptee
Hey. I have been doing some community work, as you know, in categorization. This seems a way to learn a lot about editing for one thing. I have been to the talk pages on the big subject of categories and see that there are different ideas amongst wiki people as to what the purpose is ... as a big index or as some sort of unifying concept. I got into a categoy scuffle with a long time wiki admin (see my talk page if you are not already bored) who removed what she thought were redundant categories. No problem. I just wanted your opinion about the purpose of the whole thing since it is not really heirarchical as far as indexing goes ... should you put in both cat:Victoria Cross recipient and cat:WWI Victoria Cross recipient?
Another question: some things are very hard to categorize because of no appropriate category available (academic business scholars for eg.) I need to learn how to make new cats? or is that off limits for a newby? Thanks --Caroldermoid (talk • contribs) 23:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Question of the day. (I am sure you find this categorization stuff boring!) If I add the appropriately categorized stub tag (as in the little lesson on my talk page), should I then remove the uncategorized tag? I am not totally 'getting' all the ways cats and tags are used by all the sorting bots now. Wiki culture is confusing! --Caroldermoid (talk • contribs) 23:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
New Question: I am wanting to start adding to my Dog Skin Diseases article, including some photos. But I find myself a bit intimidated by the whole photo thing on wikipedia. Some of the help pages are confusing (doh). I have uploaded one and added it to Dog skin disorders. Want to give me a pointer about making it all work together better before I press ahead? Thanks again, --Caroldermoid (talk·contribs) 20:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Another New Question: Did I get too bold with deletions trying to clean up the mess that was this article? Bakersfield, California? I saw that deletions are amongst your pet peeves, lol.
Question re image upload. I guess you are not into answering random questions from me, but maybe this will be pertinent enough. I uploaded an image for use in Dog skin disorders which is fine. But while searching in commons for pictures to use for another article, I saw that the photo was not catalogued there which makes me suspect that I failed to categorize it or some such thing when I uploaded it. How can I make images findable when I upload them? TIA Caroldermoid (talk • contribs)18:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Template usage seem very redundant, I see I can't use "See also" since some of the terms are linked in the text, and not all of them are summaries of the linked page, so I can't use "Main". I liked the sound of "Further information:" better than "For more details.." and it allowed me to use a single template on the page. Consistency is good! I hope this solves your objection, thanks for pointing this out. TimVickers16:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I've made the suggested changes, I hope this most recent improvement will let you support this nomination. TimVickers18:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with the disambig page. I should have realized there would be more than just two and gone looking for the rest but I wasn't thinking. Anyway, the fix is appreciated especially since Thogo has never made a disambig page on this wiki before. pschemp | talk13:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Danke dir für die schöne Begriffsklärungsseite. :o) Naja, jetzt weiß ich wenigstens, wie und wann man hier solche Seiten macht... Drüben in der de.wp sehen diese Seiten ja erstaunlich ähnlich aus. (Mit dem Unterschied, dass wir mitunter auch schon bei zwei gleichen Bezeichnungen eine erstellen.) Liebe Grüße, --Thogo(Talk)15:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
TS article
Hey, Samsara: numerous editors have long bugged me to FACTourette syndrome. I have resisted, because I'm convinced the coprolalia vandalism will go through the roof if the article becomes more visible, and I don't think the star is worth it, but it's come to the point that if I don't FAC it, someone else will. Would you mind having a look before I nominate it? And if/when I do nom it, can you keep it on vandal watch? Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 17:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
If it came to be subjected to serious vandalism, it would have to be protected. I'll abstain on whether that's a good or a bad thing. - Samsara (talk·contribs) 19:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
LOL !! hmmm ... good point. I'm doing the final fine tuning, and waiting for Tony1's final word on the copy edit status. Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 19:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm planning to send Stegosaurus to Featured Article candidacy. The article failed its first nomination, but user:Casliber and I have been hard at work fixing stuff. As you're listed as a member of Wikipedia: WikiProject Dinosaurs, and since I've seen you around at FAC anyway, I figured I'd drop you a line and see if there was anything you thought should be added/removed/cited on the article before it is sent to FAC. We definitely want it to pass! :)
I saw you removed the Fair Use image with the comment that it doesn't meet the requirements. However, WP:FUC #8 states: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. "
The comic illustrates a relevant section within the text, no? A full paragraph, even.
I don't think fair use applies here because the image doesn't really contribute significantly to the article (it doesn't expand anyone's knowledge of what a stegosarus is) and it's quite debatable if the mention of the comic is really that important to the article at all. The image is illustrative in this case rather than being particular significant. I also noticed that the whole paragraph refering to the comic is a word for word copy of the article already at Thagomizer so surely we don't need to be so redundant when a separate article already exists (and where the image *is* fair use, unlike in stegosaurus.) It is also debatable if that whole section about the stegosaurus in popular culture needs to be in the main article. For Frog for example, Frogs in popular culture was spun off. pschemp | talk20:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you have some valid points, Pschemp. However, the Far Side comic was what gave the Stegosaurus tail its name: in other words, paleontologists would still be calling it "that spiked tail thingy" instead of the recognized term: thagomizer, which comes from the strip. Showing the very comic which gave the stegosaur anatomy its name only makes sense to me, but as I'm principally concerned with getting the article to FA status, I don't object to any improvements needed. Firsfron of Ronchester21:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The comic already has its own article. A sentence linking to it and saying why it's important is all you need. People can veiw the comic there where it is undeniably acceptable fair use. Your use is dicey at best because its so easy to link to the clearly legal use. pschemp | talk21:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The Stegosaurus tail has its own separate article. If this were not so, fair use might be said to apply. As it stands, any other comic featuring a stegosaurus would be just as good, even one drawn by you for the occasion. Therefore, fair use does not work here. - Samsara (talk·contribs) 21:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
27-October-2006: Hello, User:Samsara. On "1 January 2006" your user ID tagged article "Ernst Haeckel" with the "{expert}" template. After over 110 revisions (by others and myself), which have addressed expert issues in that article, I believe the issue has been resolved enough, so I have UNTAGGED the expert-tag. If you wish to continue the tagging, feel free to reactivate the expert-tag. For more details, see Talk:Ernst Haeckel#Theory controversial. Thanks. -Wikid7710:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
27-October-2006: Hello again, User:Samsara. You had a good idea about copying from the German article: since the Ernst Haeckel date of death "August 9" had been wrong (as "8") nearly 2 years (since Dec. 2004); now fixed/sourced @Britannica. I copied/translated some small sections from the German "Haeckel (deutsch)" to expand the education & marriage/children parts, but left the controversial German NAZI & evolution sections out (a "can of worms" for experts). I also created new section "Publications" by paraphrasing from 1911-Britannica websites, concluding 25 more revisions:
- fixed death as "August 9, 1919" +footnote @Britannica;
- added marriage + education/years +footnotes to German WP;
- created new "Publications" +footnote to Gennet.com for 1911-text;
- added footnotes to remove "[citation needed]";
- paraphrased old text from UCBerkeley to avoid copyright; and,
The open review for "Good Article" is timely to hunt other problems; however, this guy "Ernst Haeckel" ranks beside or above "Charles Darwin" for the potential size of the article, long term. Haeckel was like an "Isaac Newton" (almost an "Einstein") of biology at the time, surpassing Linnaeus, predicting the location of fossil man, teaching for 47 years, and writing over 50 books, including a socialist view that full-scale education of young people could eliminate wars, hunger & religious conflicts. As you may know, Haeckel is the man behind the famous "World Riddle" (Welträthsel) of the universe, traditionally debated at the highest levels of academia. The article could become huge. Later. -Wikid7707:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
01-November-2006: OK, the "Ernst Haeckel" article did survive the "GA Review" as "possibly OK" (but not "Good" of course), so the crisis is over:
no obvious embarrassing wrong facts, such as date-of-death (wrong for 2 years);
no mention of copyright issues;
some sentences were complex, but still readable & grammatical;
The overall opinion was that the article was "not detailed enough" and could be re-structured, with headers and sub-headers, to focus issues. Also, it needed "recent, expert sources, such as Stephen Jay Gould" for citations.
01-November-2006 (more): As I suspected above, a good-article "could become huge" because Ernst Haeckel taught for 47 years as a "celebrity" in German-speaking countries, while his many ideas concern complex issues of embryology, histology, evolution, and socialism, where each idea might need several paragraphs to address adequate details for a "comfortable" reader. The complex issues, then, would be further broadened by documenting opposing views, on each issue. Some opposing views would be from contemporary professors that challenged his ideas, in detail, because Haeckel had become a giant "celebrity" target who was dictating to the masses his laws of scientific truth. Because the many issues are complex, I see the article as not really "awkward sentences" but, rather, the need, long term, to expand the issues under sub-headers so each complex biology issue can be explained in sufficient detail to get comfortable that each sub-header subject has been covered pro/con. Since Haeckel was not a "one-hit wonder" (or "one-trick pony"), a large article would be needed to cover all the sub-headers for all his major ideas during his 47-year tenure. -Wikid77
Applied Biology (03-November-2006): The source, so far, is UC Berkeley for the issue "politics is applied biology" with various NAZIs; the quote is stated all over NAZI webpages, so I added 2 direct footnote ref-tags within the "Ernst Haeckel" article, linking the UC Berkeley page for Haeckel. Long term, I would like to quote a Haeckel book or speech about "applied biology" (with a direct quote), but Haeckel wrote over 50 books during his 47-year tenure, so I'm hoping for a book-quote that people can check: I suspect the quote would be in one of his "monism" (German "Monismus") books. For now, I want to translate the German-WP section about "Philosophy" and add that into the WP article as some general information. More later. -Wikid7706:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks very much for chipping in to this debate, your contribution was helpful. I am not as sure as Rebecca seems to be from Hmains contributions that he is using an automated method to remove the links, which seemed to be a focus of her annoyance. On your second point, I heartily agree, and have warned Hmains that this was not a helpful thing to say. Best wishes, --Guinnog11:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You asked some questions about my editing. I examine many things when I an editing articles: punctuation, word choice, word order, spelling, clarity, links, categories. etc, etc. Using your example, I changed links and references to World War I to 'World War I', since that is the name of the article on this subject, not 'The Great War', 'First World War', 'WWI', etc. Also, the WP guidelines indicate only the first reference to a WP article should be linked, not subsequent references, so I try to remove the excess links--difficult to find manually, I must admit. I saw the link and reference to 'Orient' and recalled the discussion of that term including the lack of clarity about it (was it Near East or Far East or what?) Since I saw that the article was really talking about the Ottoman Empire, I changed the sentence to show that fact. Thanks for your interest. Hmains03:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
