User talk:WAS 4.250/Archive 07
Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 7 | 12 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the speedy deletion tag from the above article. While the subject might not be notable, the article does assert notability in a reasonable way. You may wish to list it at WP:AFD instead, to get a broader consensus on the article. Thanks for your time and your hard work reporting these articles - even though I'm not deleting this particular one, your efforts are very much appreciated. Kafziel Talk 16:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Brian Peppers ANI thread
[edit]Thank you for your contribution to that discussion. I actually recalled having read what you quoted, but I mistakenly thought it was in WP:NOT rather than the BIO policy, and hence didn't locate it. Thanks again. Newyorkbrad 00:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- WP:BLP = Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
- WP:BIO = Wikipedia:Notability (people)
- WP:NOT = Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
WAS 4.250 04:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry; I knew that; just a slip of the tongue/fingers. Regards, Newyorkbrad 08:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 8 | 19 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for those delicious cookies!
[edit]Hi! I really liked those cookies, I've seen many cookies, but none of them so delicious!!! Now, I have had lots of fun, even on the McKeith page... More seriously though, I will take a look into the links that you gave me, and read them carefully because I'm simply not the "winning battle" kind either. In fact, I'm the kind that generally loses battles, so it is best for me to learn to avoid battles. :) --Merzul 22:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Influenza history section
[edit]Hi there, thanks for watching over the influenza article. I had also noticed that paragraph added to the history section. I got in touch with the original contributor after adding that citation needed tag. He seems to have been referring to the ancient history of influenza and particularly the conditions that produced the first known epidemic in humans. He said he'd hunt up a reference and then reword this and put it back, hope this will solve the problem. TimVickers 20:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- It takes modern technology to distinguish flu from other diseases so there can be no evidence of ancient flu that warrents that speculative addition. It's easy to come up with biased claims. Reliable meaningful claims are a horse of a different color. Perhaps he should post his anti-intensive farming speculations (with sources) on the talk page. WAS 4.250 20:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it is more directed towards the ancient practice of using pig manure to feed fish farms, which is still common in China and a factor in cross-species jumps. I've added a few references and reworded the section a bit, see what you think. The link to Egypt seems tenuous, since I can't find many sources on this. TimVickers 20:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thoughts off the top of my head: I haven't read the provided sources yet, flu is a multi-species disease but the word is used as if it only means flu-in-humans so rewriting to clarify the distinction is needed, the speculation seems unwarrented - I'll be curious to see what possible evidence they have since disease was common and writing uncommon, we even today know too little about the causes of flu pandemics to assert what is being asserted about long ago - all in all I think it oughta be moved to the talk page .... but I haven't read the sources yet. I'll read them by tomorrow. Maybe by then the wording will be better or else at least moved to talk. See ya tomorrow. Cheers. Be well. WAS 4.250 21:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you will be able to access that first Nature review I added. If you E-mail me through my user page and I can send you the Pdf. TimVickers 21:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I just read [1] [2] and "Human influenza pandemics commonly arise by genetic reassortment between human and avian viruses in pigs. Yet global developments in aquaculture--the so-called 'Blue Revolution'--will mean increased co-location of people, ducks and pigs." I can't believe you are supporting this edit in the history section. It is rank speculation. WAS 4.250 21:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The references are indeed unsatisfactory, but the fact that we had no material on the origin of this disease means we need to add something. We can either replace this edit with new material, or add alternative theories and better references this existing paragraph. I did this with the first sentence, if you follow back in the edit history, and I'm now happy with the first part but not the ancient egypt speculation. I see edits like these as suggestions for improvement and the basis for expansion and correction. Of course, if after some research we find this is unfounded it must be removed, but it is an honest attempt to improve the article. TimVickers 21:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
What do you think of the new version? I'm hoping to hear back from an expert on Ancient Egypt soon. TimVickers 21:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Without any additional looking at anything, I ask you to fully understand our policy on original research while at the same time understanding that if I believe a claim then IAR works for me for that claim. On the one hand your expert carries no weight in wikipedia-world; on the other hand their knowlegde of sources can work wonders; on yet another hand their "expertise" can be a conflict of interest if their reputation conflicts with the issue at hand; on yet another hand ... well wikipedia is simply not set up for experts ... but you and I care deeply about truth and we agree experts help a lot with that. Please do your best and I'll not revert until I don't see another choice. I'll look at the "new version" later. This has got me worked up more than is good for me. Time for a cookie. WAS 4.250 01:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link
[edit]Thanks for the link, that would be the one -- febtalk 07:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 9 | 26 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikia/Wikipedia Conflict of Interest
[edit]WAS, your comments about the Essjay flap are really resonating with me. Dangerous ground we must be standing on, if we're standing there together today! I posted a response to your comment on Jimbo's talk page. I'm sure that Guy will delete it soon. But, honestly, I know that Wikia's "contributions" to Wikipedia are probably a "loss leader" sort of arrangement. (That is, I'll bet Wikia spends more money ON Wikipedia than it gets OUT of Wikipedia.) HOWEVER, why do they make so many efforts that would suggest it is the other way around? It's getting more and more embarrassing to have Jimmy wearing two distinctly different hats, saying he can tell which hat is which, and then he appoints someone to the ArbCom AND hires them at Wikia, in the very same month. What other cross-pollutants are fouling the system that we don't know about? --72.94.158.49 15:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC) (It's Kohs.)
- Essjay's behavior reminds me of your behavior. My evaluation of those behaviors result in my not being able to trust anything either of you say. WAS 4.250 18:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Harsh but fair. I came along to nuke the above using Troll-B-Gon, but I see there is no need. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any interest in helping to write this? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll answer on your talk page. WAS 4.250 06:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I would very much like you to be involved. You have good ideas and insights and you express yourself really well. The thing I'm aiming for is simply to come up with a way of judging when we should allow BLPs to be deleted if the subject asks for it. I wasn't thinking of going into other possibilities such as stubbing, but then again, maybe a range of options would be better. I don't have fixed ideas about it. I have an instinct that Wikipedia shouldn't force barely notable people into situations where they have to nervously check their bios every day for the rest of their lives, in case someone finds the newspaper article from 1972 that mentions the affair with the local vicar. But I have no clear idea of how to word things or of where the lines should be drawn. As for Brandt, I think that issue is going to be on the boil for the foreseeable future, so the timing may never be ideal, but there's no direct relationship. The only connection is that I've learned quite a bit from reading his complaints, and I've learned from the others I've been involved in too e.g. Gregory Lauder-Frost and Rachel Marsden. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Coffee?
[edit]I'm going to be staying a PATH stop or two away from you for the entire first week of April. Would love to meet up if you're up for it. You're one of a small number of people here that I've come to think of a friend. "No thanks" is certainly an OK answer if you'd rather not, but I thought I'd give it a shot.
On a not-entirely-unrelated matter, you can get a single-blind untraceable throw-away email address at sneakemail if you'd ever find that useful. I used it, for example, to politely suggest to a 30 year old gentleman from Pakistan that he might like to reconsider hitting on my 16 year old daughter. :-/
Hope to hear from you. Waitak 12:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've come to think of a friend, too. But no thanks. I wrote a long paragraph explaining why and deleted it. Maybe you could chat with me on this page and say what you would have said over coffee? WAS 4.250 13:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's okay - I more than half suspected the answer would be no, and I respect the boundaries you've established, but it just seemed like too good an opportunity to not at least offer, given that I'm coming from the other side of the planet to 20 minutes away. I'm about as safe as it gets, in terms of most of the reasons I could think of for not wanting to meet - but you don't owe me an explanation for what yours might be. Do let me know if you reconsider. Waitak 15:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Confused
[edit]Did you mean to place this edit in its own section or somewhere else? I'm a bit confused what it has to do with the community noticeboard closing discussion. Best, IronGargoyle 02:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- People should read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Proposed decision and decide for themselves what it means as relates to the issue at hand. WAS 4.250 03:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 10 | 5 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm familiar with it. What are you trying to say? Mangojuicetalk 23:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- It seemed to me that you did not know of it. Your contribution to WP:COI seemed very confused and I thought not knowing about OWN might be the reason. WAS 4.250 06:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Did you read my comments on the talk page? Some people (established editors, even) have been saying others have a "conflict of interest" and referring to WP:COI when in fact they are just established editors of an article, making arguments that serve them as editors. Hence, the distinction. I don't think that kind of argument is an ownership issue. Mangojuicetalk 13:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I read your comments on the talk page and I found them very unclear also. Your above comment is clear but I fail to see it as a sufficient justification for an addition to the COI policy. The usual thing to do in a case like the one you describe above is to ask for clarification on the policy talk page. And a frequent response is for someone else to assert that the first person has mischaracterized the situation. The discussion belongs on the talk page and if it turns out that something is actually be missing from the policy (we try not to add common sense implications to the policies) then it can be added in the wake of the discussion. WAS 4.250 19:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Your note about credentials
[edit]Would it work, do you think, instead of all the verification of credentials stuff? I've posted on WT:ATT and on the Jimbo credentials talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- My overall impression is that it is good idea. It expresses the foundation head's idea (as well as many others) that wikipedia is better off just getting rid of all such claims unless the user wishes to prove it themselves. In that it is similar to my BLP idea yet it is distinctively different in several ways. I don't know which is the better idea, but I think either is a good first step that could gain concensus. Some of the other ideas expressed (see the see also section) could be implemented jointly. Probably the BLP or the ATT idea (but not both) should be combined with the checkuser identity policy idea and the arbcom accountability idea (they develop their own accountabilty standards at their own speed - but they at least start down that path) in the best scenerio; but it all depends on what the community wants in the end. WAS 4.250 02:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think "If not published, the source material must be provided by a trusted source such as a university; for example, a degree certificate from an accredited body uploaded onto the site" is workable as the community is not equipped to deal with fraud of even the simplest kind as witness Essjay's absurd claims. An employee at a university, a bribe to an an employee at a university, a diploma mill, faking that you are a university, etc. WAS 4.250 02:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is a need to define "third party" and why that term is used. Is Wikimedia or the accrediting agency the second party? Also, suppose the wikimedia foundation as part of verifying a checkuser also verifies a Phd as well as an identity? Perhaps such a person could remain known to the office but not to the public as to identity, yet be able to say "phd in physics" for example? WAS 4.250 02:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I wonder about limiting to "professional expertise or academic qualification" rather than leting the community evolve its own idea of what claims should be sourced or deleted. Con(fidence) artists are endlessly inventive and can find any number of things to lie about to influence public opinion of themselves to raise their community standing and affect acceptance of their editorial evaluations. Even edit-counts is being used by people using automated scripts to make tiny changes to get high edit-counts. I prefer flexibility and guidance while you like to lock things down - I guess what counts here is what the community takes a liking to. WAS 4.250 02:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 11 | 12 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Instead of moving the page, I felt it better to get further discussion so I've listed it as proposed move and in the Village Pump. You may want to reaffirm your view in the informal poll Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Requested move just for clarity. Cheers Nil Einne 16:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 12 | 20 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream" | News and notes: Bad sin, milestones |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Your note
[edit]Don't worry about it. You have very good people skills, among the best around here, in fact. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words. WAS 4.250 22:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear WAS 4.250
[edit]I wanted to email you this, but I'll do it here. I'm sorry. I should never, in a million years, have called you such outrageous names. Whenever I edit Wikipedia now it is with considerable embarassment. Feel free to delete this, but I wanted you to read it. I was upset at what I viewed as condescencion (plus I was editing after both working all day and drinking a few beers, so my mindset was off). So although I've told other users that I stand by what I said, I only stand by the initial idea of not being condescended to, the words I used were inexcusable in any situation. I'm not a bad person, and I was acting out of character. So again, I'm exteremely sorry. No response necessary. Take care. --Tractorkingsfan 03:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I suspected as much at the time. I forgive you totally. I hope you are also successful at dealing with others with regard to this. Please be aware that the real lesson for you is that you have to live with yourself for the rest of your life, so be someone you would like to spend the rest of your life with. I think you are well on the way there. Good luck with being the type of person you would be proud to be. I think you'll make it. Hell, I know you will. WAS 4.250 06:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Response
[edit]I was busy for sometime. But now I ahve responded to your comments on Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Criticism_and_overwhelming_clause. Please respond back there.Bless sins 19:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 13 | 26 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I have a few positions open. If you know a lot about technology, particularly MediaWiki, you might be interested in writing our technology report, which can be compiled from the MediaWiki commit log. If you're interested in press coverage about Wikipedia, you can help with our In the news section. What I'd really like are a few people to cover special stories, like the story I wrote this week about Danny and Brad's resignations. If anything appeals to you in particular, let me know, and I'll give you more information. If you're still not sure, let me know, and I can give you an idea of what I'm looking for. Thanks so much for volunteering. Ral315 » 05:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
ATT/bias stuff
[edit]Thanks for dropping by at Talk:Rosa Luz Alegría. I've said this there: - Yes. But... personally I'm not comfortable with the wider systemic consequences if we're not thinking about what we're doing - almost as Shakespeare said. With potentially good articles I'm inclined to eventualism and finding a way that serves WP:NPOV just as much as WP:ATT. I'm intending to wait a few days here because I've asked a translator for input and I've left a suggestion at BLP talk about handling unsourced statements where they are significant for the balance of the article. VSerrata 07:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC) --VSerrata 07:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- And thanks for the new section heading! --VSerrata 09:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Criticism/Praise of Islam
[edit]I'll take your advice and work on such an article. Thank you for the advice and the show of support. Coldbud 04:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 14 | 2 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Praise of Islam
[edit]Hi WAS 4.250; I just blocked User:Coldbud as a sock of User:His excellency. If you want to work on that page, it might be better to move it to your userspace. Cheers, Tom Harrison Talk 18:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Was this you?
[edit]Hi. Did you make this edit? If so you might want to log on and make it again. If not I will strike it out. Best wishes, --Guinnog 17:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it was me. When I log on I'll confirm it. WAS 4.250 4.250.177.200 17:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, and sorry to trouble you.--Guinnog 18:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 15 | 9 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Tidbits
[edit]Before you spoke about the Essjay letter tidbit. I would like your comments on this subject. Further, you stated on the talk page your views about the co-founder issue. I would appreciate your collaboration on this matter. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- The Essjay letter should be in the article in some way, but exactly how is up to consensus. Larry is a cofounder, but that is not something worth fighting over with regard to the essjay article. Have you evaluated what you want in life and what might be effective means towards that end? WAS 4.250 21:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, Wikipedia has been a great help to me in life. I have learned a lot from the community and reading articles. I was editing less and less on Wikipedia. Then I saw an editor remove a picture without gaining consensus first. That sparked my interest. Otherwise, I could already be retired or on a break. I am neutral on the wording of the letter tidbit. The refs for the letter are in the article. The refs are verifiable. After the 'letter' and the 'co-founder refs' are put back in the article I will then make a decision on taking a very long long break. I do not understand the behaviour of the other editors. The letter claim is a fact and the a founder or co-founder is another fact. I suggest we work together to put the letter info in the article. I hope you would be willing to comment on the talk page about the letter. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 03:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm glad to hear that Wikipedia has been a great help to you in life. I have also benefited from the time I have spent here. Wikipedia needs to evolve further though. The efforts underway to sometime soon, probably this year, implement some form of stable versioning system encourages me to believe that this further evolution will occur. Every month I edit a little less myself. It is normal and natural to move on to other things...
- Perhaps the other editors are still emotionally tied to Essjay or perhaps they emotionally feel Wikipedia is threatened by anything that makes Essjay look even worse. In any case, nothing here is decided forever, so any effort to add or remove the letter can be undone at any time in the future. Efforts to make final edits in wikipedia is like trying to plow the ocean - futile. So rather than fighting hard for what after the victory can easily be reverted, why not wait until the emotions die down and the combatants find new battles to engage their attentions? Come back in a few months and then we can see what we can do. Meanwhile, put versions you wish to retain access to on your user page and then revert it so the version is not live but exists in history for retrieval at anytime. WAS 4.250 10:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion. However, my user page was AFDed. The info is easily retrieval anyways. Currently, there is support for the Essjay letter claim. Read the talk page. The arguements for not including are problably emotional as you suggested. And the arguements for including it are valid. Since there is already enough support for inclusion, I recommend you give your two cents. Simple enough. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 19:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Follow up. What if the other editors do not go for your suggestion. Then what? Just asking. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 19:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with your suggestion and compromise. Thank you for your collaboration and good advise. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 04:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Follow up. What if the other editors do not go for your suggestion. Then what? Just asking. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 19:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion. However, my user page was AFDed. The info is easily retrieval anyways. Currently, there is support for the Essjay letter claim. Read the talk page. The arguements for not including are problably emotional as you suggested. And the arguements for including it are valid. Since there is already enough support for inclusion, I recommend you give your two cents. Simple enough. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 19:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Relevant material from "WP:RS" removed?
[edit]I see you quoted that "It is prohibited to remove relevant material sourced to reliable sources because you have done some original research and decided the reliable source is actually wrong."
Can I ask where it was you saw that stated? I've noticed many cases where relevant material from reliable sources has been reverted - if you've quoted WP policy, then that statement needs wider publication. PalestineRemembered 19:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Can you refresh my memory? I can't recall making that statement. And actually, standing alone without context, I disagree with it. WAS 4.250 19:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
User box
[edit]OK, after studying WP:BLP I have to admit that you have a point. However, I think you should have left me a note rather than editing it.--Mantanmoreland 13:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- You are right that I should have left you a note. Sorry. WAS 4.250 13:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. It's just a user box, and one school of thought holds they should all be 86'd.--Mantanmoreland 13:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]Hello,
Thank you for the "what links here" tip; it's a great start.
Regards,
Welcome. WAS 4.250 14:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Question about Wikipedia:Attack sites
[edit]I don't follow part of your comment for this diff. I have been following the WR end of this, but what's the story about the wiki mail? Mangoe 15:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- See [3] and [4]. WAS 4.250 12:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Working party
[edit]WAS, there's a discussion about forming a bipartisan working party for ATT, specifically to develop a compromise, per Jimbo's suggestion today. Your name has been suggested as a neutral party because of your transclusion idea. Can you indicate whether you'd be interested in doing this? I hope you'll consider it. See Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community_discussion#Working_party. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I'll click on the link and see if I have anything useful I can say to help. WAS 4.250 12:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's a very interesting idea, thank you. I'm not sure what this means: "Opponets of the wording of the existing ATT modify the V, RS, and NOR pages transcluded into ATT to modify the wording ..." If you mean edit the opponents should edit those pages so they conform to ATT, I'd be amazed to see that. Anyway, I'm bowing out of the ATT situation, and have left a note to that effect. [5] I don't think I can deal with the endless bickering anymore. If you want to e-mail me, please feel free, though I recall you saying somewhere that you didn't use e-mail on Wikipedia, so if I don't hear from you, I won't be offended. :-) Thank you for all your work, your insights, and your wisdom. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I've suggested getting the Working Group together at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Working_Group to start talking about any potential compromise on the attribution policy issue. Perahaps you can add the page to your watchlist. I have also mentioned this page in the community discussion, so there is public awareness. Hopefully you will be willing to participate. Thanks. zadignose 18:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Identity Crisis: Jeffrey Newman
[edit]Thanks for the quick response. Are passwords case sensitive? Where will you post your answer where I can find it - I am not very techie and it is the middle of the night in UK? 85.210.255.81 02:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I believe passwords are case sensitive. WAS 4.250 09:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 16 | 16 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism edit
[edit]Sorry about that, I thought I had brought it back to that original edit. Could've sworn that was what the screen had shown me when I reverted it. Thanks for pointing that out.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 16:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 17 | 23 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Your revert
[edit]Cool! Best wishes (I just twish we were icon enhanced and i would send you a happy one), SqueakBox 01:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
In lighter veins
[edit]In lighter veins most likely :) Cheers! --Bhadani (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Richard Gere and WP:BLP
[edit]Hi, thankyou for that clarification of WP:BLP. I am in complete agreement that the requirement of sensitivity is the essence of the BLP policy. It is not always easy to get editors with an agenda to understand this. I would like to point out that the editor arguing to change the policy is currently arguing to include two allegations in the Richard Gere entry. The first allegation is a clearly false and malicious allegation about sexual behaviour. The second allegation is an unsubstantiated and malicious allegation denied by the subject of the entry, an allegation that no credible sources assert is true. I have been arguing on the BLP noticeboard (see here) that this material should be excluded from the entry, but these arguments have been largely ignored on the grounds that there are "sources" that refer to the allegations, hence that they are sourced and legitimate allegations. These editors simply argue that I refuse to work toward consensus, because I insist on the necessity of editing sensitively, conservatively, factually, etcetera. Without further support from concerned editors I believe the editors favouring inclusion of the false and unsubstantiated malicious allegations will succeed in including this material at this entry. Thanks again for your helpful contribution to the BLP talk page. FNMF 02:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Being an encyclopedia and WP:NPOV trump WP:BLP in that we do not omit encyclopedic data due to being sensitive nor do we censor negative information that is needed to provide balance, objectivity, and due weight. Opinions will differ on "what is encyclopedic" versus "what is tabloidish". Opinions will differ on what information is needed to make an article NPOV. But just cause it is sourced and notable doesn't mean we include it. It has to be sourced to a certain standard. And it has to be notable in terms of being encyclopedic, not just notable as in people are gossiping about it so tabloid news covers it. WAS 4.250 03:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. And may I ask your opinion of the Gere allegations? Regarding the two allegations: Can a false and malicious allegation about sexual behaviour (with a gerbil) be included because it is an "urban legend"? Can an unsubstantiated malicious allegation that no credible source asserts is true, and that the subject of the entry denies, be included because the subject of the entry denied the allegation in print? To me these allegations are clearly non-encyclopaedic, and inclusion of them would be insensitive and contentious, and hence would violate WP:BLP. But if you disagree with this analysis, I would be interested to know. FNMF 03:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is possible for a "false and malicious allegation about sexual behaviour" to be encyclopedic, but it is very rare. Whether this is such a case or not should be decided by unbiased well-informed established-wikipedians. I am not well-informed on the issue in question. WAS 4.250 03:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think that is a fair response. So would it follow that until unbiased well-informed established-wikipedians indicate that this is such a case, it would be the sensitive and neutral thing to do to exclude these allegations? I mean, really, why should we presume that unsubstantiated and malicious allegations about a marriage between an actor and a model, allegations that no credible source asserts are true, are encyclopaedic? The argument being put by pro-inclusion editors is that Gere's denial of these allegations makes them encyclopaedic, but it seems to me that Gere's denial means editors should be more cautious about inclusion of these allegations. FNMF 03:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it is exactly the position of WP:BLP that questionable claims not be included until they are known to comply with all our policies including the sensitivity provision of WP:BLP. This is not a license for mass removal or edit warring against established wikipedians; but it a presumption that deletion is always correct while the issue is being decided. So yes it follows that "until unbiased well-informed established-wikipedians indicate that this is such a case, it would be the sensitive and neutral thing to do to exclude these allegations." WAS 4.250 03:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thankyou. I appreciate that you've taken the time to answer my questions. FNMF 04:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. Update on the RfC on Gere. At least 11 editors have indicated they believe there are strong grounds for excluding the contentious material. It is presently being argued by those favouring inclusion that, in the absence of a clear consensus to remove, the material should remain. This seems to clearly go against your statement that "until unbiased well-informed established-wikipedians indicate that this is such a case, it would be the sensitive and neutral thing to do to exclude these allegations." I believe the discussion is being drawn out interminably in an attempt to evade the reality that there is a strong body of opinion against including this material. Perhaps it is time the RfC was closed, however there is no way this will be accepted if I do it myself. Any assistance would be welcomed. FNMF 22:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is standard to give such things a week. Further it is a tactical mistake to seem to control or manipulate or censor the discussion. Finally, chill out, no desicion at wikipedia is permanate; so no matter what is decided, the issue can (and will, count on it) be raised in the future. WAS 4.250 01:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. Thanks. FNMF 04:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 18 | 30 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
[edit]Please do not remove others comments unless there is good reason, which you should specify in the edit summary. Picaroon (Talk) 00:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- It was all an edit conflict caused by two of us trying to revert a vandal at the same time. I just had the slower computer/connection. WAS 4.250 00:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to get you riled up
[edit]I'm sorry if I came off as complainy at WP:BLP. I was merely curious and confused. I realise (more now than this morning) that BLP is a contraversial and heated policy, where emotions are likely to run high - and probably let my usual abrahsive style come through more than was wise. I hope I can cheer you up:
WilyD has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 19 | 7 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I think that the section you keep inserting into the "Jousting" article on "The Chronicles of Froissart" is not appropriate to the article. The fact of a war being put on hold for a joust is certainly worth mentioning, but the detail and length are not. Perhaps you could write an article about the "Chronicles" and link to it from the Jousting article. SmackDown 16:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think the details are important in clarifying and documenting the exact nature of jousting. I wish to work with you in identifying and deleting anything in that that is not important enough to keep in the article. For example, I think the fact that this joust was motivated by trying to impress the ladies is very important, yet to say that in my own words is original research, so by quoting the words of the jousters we let the reader decide. Other parts document unsourced assertions elsewhere in the article and could be moved to a footnote sourcing those claims, but why break up the narrative that way? WAS 4.250 16:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe it would help the reader to point out what that account illustrates: the connection between romance and jousting, the importance associated with jousting, the nonlethal expectations and stopping the joust when the risk of death seemed too great, the financial aspects, and so forth. I did not wish to spoon feed the reader, but perhaps some things are best pointed out. What do you think? WAS 4.250 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Your note
[edit]Hi WAS, I don't think my edit was mistaken, and I am involved in discussions on the Talk page (though at a higher thread). I saw the ref tag being left open, which 'eats up' all the text that follows. This causes the items like the Mad Cow reference to disappear, and that's what I fixed (twice). If you think those items are wrong, then you should remove them or put comments around them, but leaving the open ref tag is incorrect /broken html/wiki syntax. Crum375 22:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 20 | 14 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Agriculture
[edit]I thought you may be interested in this article by Bernard Stiegler. Although brief, it requires some effort, but in my opinion this pays off. It places the debate you have been engaged in into a slightly different context. Anyhow, just a thought. When you get some time. FNMF 03:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Factory farm stuff
[edit]Nice work on combining the lead. Main reason I divided it up into a paragraph per sentence was to isolate/help any issues with the changes on a sentence by sentence basis (for obvious reasons really since it was such a struggle). I think it reads better how you've combined it.. So nice work on that.. NathanLee 02:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Complexity in evolution
[edit]Hi there, as you expressed an interest on this topic, you might have an opinion as to if it should be discussed in the new section I have added, or if this is a minor topic that can be covered in another part of the article. TimVickers 22:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, sometimes that guy just rubs me up the wrong way. TimVickers 15:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Query
[edit]Query for you here. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- WAS, please answer the question, rather than just saying you've answered already. I've asked it three times, and I can't find an answer. I also can't work out how it might be OR, and as you know, I try to avoid OR, so I would like to know. I admit to being puzzled by your aggressive attitude. You're normally happy to explain your positions. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 21 | 21 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Contributions wanted - Factory farm article
[edit]Hi, can you please comment on here. This is to resolve the revert issues to unlock the page. cheers, NathanLee 16:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I've made a specific proposal about how to advance the situation. I don't see much evidence that anything else is likely to succeed. FNMF 17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
RfM
[edit]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/Factory farming, 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.
SlimVirgin (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Factory farm comment
[edit]Hi. I just wanted to make sure you saw this response to you. I felt your last comment was implying I prefer fighting to writing. If so, I have to say I don't feel I have been fighting - if anything, I have been trying to cajole some other editors to try a solution that I thought had a chance. But I do think this latest proposal is going badly in the wrong direction. In my opinion there is no point writing if it is going to end up with an article on animals and one on crops. Furthermore, the article as it needs to exist is already on the way - it is the article on industrial agriculture. My feeling that this is the case is nothing to do with taking sides between SlimVirgin and NathanLee: I am essentially a neutral editor when it comes to their dispute. But I think it would be a loss if the spirit of compromise meant that the fundamental phenomenon in question is not represented by an entry in Wikipedia. Just wanted to clarify my "position." FNMF 05:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK, so you want to have the article industrial agriculture. You have it. Deleting it requires a deletion procedure (AFD?). Nothing decided on the talk page of another article allows for the automatic deletion of industrial agriculture. Sure, merging is possible, but you say you want it to have unique data that wouldn't be appropriate to merge. Therefore that unique data can't be merged. So what's your problem? Surely info specific to either crops or animals can go in their two articles while info common to both can go in industrial agriculture. If you are just gonna give up, I can't help you. But if you want to make industrial agriculture a great article without info specific to crops or animals then go for it and I'll help you. There is too much food industry info to fit in even ten articles. It's all about writing it. So write. WAS 4.250 08:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying. But it's a bit of a stretch to say "I have it." The article has no talk page, exists tenuously, and what is being suggested in the latest proposal is that it shouldn't exist. FNMF 08:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Every wikipedia article "exists tenuously". People are free to suggest anything. So what? WAS 4.250 08:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Some more tenuously than others. I was just trying to say that I don't believe I'm engaged in "fighting." My goal was to find an exit to the deadlock. But now I am concerned that the proposed solution will produce an unsatisfactory result. That's the only answer I have to "so what?" FNMF 08:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I apologize. Let me try to communicate better. I agree that "Some more tenuously than others." I agree that you were not "engaged in fighting." I agree that your behavior was that of looking to "find an exit to the deadlock." I understand that you are "concerned that the proposed solution will produce an unsatisfactory result." I am trying to communicate to you that if you will just please write good stuff, I'll do everything I can to make sure it ends up in a wikipedia article. Isn't that what you want? WAS 4.250 08:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I appreciate your remarks greatly. As for my involvement, I got involved initially because I wanted to try to improve conditions for the article to get written, because I consider it a very important topic. It was less that I wanted to write the content, than that I wanted it to be possible for someone to write good content. The truth is, I'm not sure I'm really qualified to write the detailed content for the entry. I do feel I have something to add about what industrial agriculture is, hence my small contributions to the opening paragraph of that article. But I'm not sure I'm the man to actually compose an entire article on this topic. Hope that this is not too frustrating a response for you. And, again, thanks for the remarks. I'm glad for them, not only for themselves, but because I have been very impressed with what I have seen of your editing and your approach. FNMF 14:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
(<---) Thank you for your kind words. I'm not sure I'm the man to actually compose an entire article on this topic either. But that's the great thing about wikipedia; all you have to do is help out where you can. The articles evolve over time. Some people are best suited for just talking on the talk page. But when article structuring is the question, we need to structure for actual content and not what the content should be if someone else were to write it. Please just help out however you can. Thanks for being a part of the wikipedia family. WAS 4.250 16:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think I could contribute much there. They can't even agree on a title! :) TimVickers 16:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. There have been some developments at Factory farming you may wish to take a look at. FNMF 07:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
A question
[edit]If you have time, I would like to canvas your opinion of whether the entry on Archimedes Plutonium deserves to exist. To me it is clearly non-encyclopaedic, non-notable, and probably malicious. The guy has no claim to fame whatsoever, and I note that he has on occasion requested that the entry be deleted. I also note this most recent comment by Jimbo Wales. I would argue that the entry falls into the category he mentions at the end of the comment. Thanks. FNMF 04:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It will be a sad day when this article gets deleted. Restricting our content to what the NYT thinks is "notable" is a terrible way to go. Grace Note 05:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 22 | 28 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Request for Mediation
[edit]
|
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Factory farming.
|
cleanup
[edit]Could you db-author this Template:Freedom wiki ? It appears you are done with it, and Template:FreeContentMeta seems the way this is going regardless. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, WAS 4.250. If you wanted a break from Factory Farming, your input would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evolution! Thanks. TimVickers 18:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Redirects
[edit]Sorry. The redirects got changed without me realising it. Deleted the point. Thanks and good luck. FNMF 14:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
(Organic) bananas in our ears
[edit]Yes, I think we do, which is exactly the kind of impasse the MedCom is there for. I wish you would agree to it. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I can't hear you. I have a banana in my ear. WAS 4.250 05:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hahahaha! You got me laughing here :). Brilliant! Jav43 05:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 23 | 4 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I put it up for both your AFD and Speedy delete for attacking the poor man. Cornea 17:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
How come you keep pasting the whole article everywhere? Cornea 20:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Edit
[edit]It seems obtuse to replace the use of the word "vaccination" on the page on vaccines. Thiomersal is the wiki page, while thimerosal creates a redirect. In The change of wording to "the paper by Wakefield et al" is better than "Wakefield et al's paper". Later, "immunization" is used to replace "vaccination" - I don't understand the rationale where one is chosen and the other not. In "Potential for adverse side effects in general" the re-wording is an improvement, as are changes in "Economics of vaccine development". I'll revert back here to this version and ask them for clarification of why they are changing "vaccination". TimVickers 21:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Reading their talk page I can see they were using an archaic definition. I've merged the two versions to retain the improvements while replacing the word "vaccination" TimVickers 22:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I undid your edit because you accidentally removed alot of comments and headings too. --MichaelLinnear 04:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Daniel Brandt AfD
[edit]Hey, Chris has a point about the socks. I've already tagged one account as spa, there's probably going to be more. If you disagree with it, bring up the the guy who said it. Thanks. Kwsn 05:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- What's this about socks? I reverted an unsourced acusation about something other than socks that I believe is invalid. WAS 4.250 05:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, I get the point. I rewrote that statement to be neutral, and removed the thing about Brandt. [6] Kwsn 06:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Your snowball clause comment
[edit]"Snowballing controversial cases produces results indistinguishable from trolling." - omg. I don't think I've ever heard such a succinct and accurate way of expressing the toxicity of this popular practice. Well said! Milto LOL pia 09:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for saying so. What a wonderful way to begin my day! WAS 4.250 15:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 24 | 11 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I have looked at this article. It seems more like an essay to me. What are you trying to document here? Also, several of your refs are broken especially in the Animals section. Garrie 06:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- The context for me is talk:factory farming. I don't understand your comments. Broken refs? Be specific. On the whole, the article is about "challenges and issues of industrial agriculture" which is an an important issue. Perhaps you find both eating and pain not worthy of encyclopedic coverage? WAS 4.250 08:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Brandt note
[edit]Hey again. I just wanted to let you know that deleting references wasn't my intention on Daniel Brandt when I made my three edits, although are you sure you didn't misread the diff? I did add a ref to the first part of the diff, and I got it from the bottom. Your diff even removed it, so... I guess it's moot now what with the latest AfD, and I normally avoid controversial articles anyway, but I don't want people to think I just go around deleting references for no reason :-P Cheers, Milto LOL pia 05:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I am trying so hard to stay away from contaversial stuff, you wouldn't belive it. I bite my tongue so often I am beginning to think blood is how saliva tastes. WAS 4.250 06:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles
[edit]Thank for taking the time to visit Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and participate in the process. I have recently edited your addition to project page. Your addition of "reliable published (online or offline)" was left in the goal statement as I beleive it is an accurate reflection of goal of the editors belonging to Category:Unreferenced article patrollers. However some of your edits are inappropriate and fail to address the concerns I mentioned in the edit summary when removing them the first time.
- Diff We don't delete articles, though we do sometimes recommend them for deletion.
- Diff Why try to reference what we can but per WP:V#Burden_of_evidence The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material) (which should have said "We try to reference what we can")
Additionally - Your additions appear to be intended as as Hints and Tips so would not be appropriate as statement in the middle of the goal statement, even if you had addressed the concerns in the edit summaries that removed them (which you did not, Diff).
You are welcome bring your ideas to Wikipedia talk:Unreferenced articles and attempt to get consensus from the community before adding them to the appropriate area of the project page.
I await your proposal on Wikipedia talk:Unreferenced articles to discuss your proposed addition of the text (note that an article does not fail verifiability if it can be referenced but isn't; but only by actually finding a reference can we demonstate that it can be referenced). Don't delete articles about topics with significant offline reliable published sources (like science or history) only because you can't find an online source; instead ask someone knowledgable about it.
Signed Jeepday (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I have removed your speedy deletion tag from this article- I just reverted to the last version before the skydiving nonsense. Being a saint confers enough notability to decline a speedy, send to AfD if you are not convinced. J Milburn 20:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 25 | 18 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 26 | 25 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
United States housing bubble, featured article candidate, 28 June 2007
[edit]Please take a moment to enter your thoughts for this article as featured at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#United_States_housing_bubble. Frothy 19:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edits to List of notable artificial intelligence projects
[edit]Hi. With regards to your recent edits to List of notable artificial intelligence projects, kindly see if you can update the article with a proper official link to the project, briefly state how this is an AI project, and finally add some relevant third-party references if available. As you know, failing these, the edits may need to be reverted, despite the genuineness of the SWS project, and that would be a pity. Thanks. --Amit 08:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm writing the article now. Later today I'll update. WAS 4.250 08:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- I see that you've put in a lot of work into the SEAS article, and that you've also updated its entry in the List of notable artificial intelligence projects article. However, this entry preferably should be just one sentence - this will avoid crowding, and it should really just mention how it relates to AI, and that's all. Thanks. --Amit 19:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please do that for me? You know what you are looking for and you care. I'm kinda feeling done with that effort. Thanks ever so much. WAS 4.250 19:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Done. --Amit 22:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi there
[edit]The acrimony seems to have died down at WP:V and people are now co-operating on a single compromise version that should be able to accommodate all views. Please feel free to edit this draft. here or add specific comments on how to improve it, either for clarity or including more of the relevant viewpoints. Tim Vickers 20:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. I made two changes that I think make it better but both are too minor to fight or argue over. WAS 4.250 20:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey
[edit]
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
| For the "armpit cabal" line here Kwsn(Ni!) 15:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC) |
United States housing market correction
[edit]Hi WAS 4.250. You are off to such a great start on the article United States housing market correction that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Synthetic Environment for Analysis and Simulations
[edit]Hi WAS 4.250. You are off to such a great start on the article Synthetic Environment for Analysis and Simulations that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 27 | 2 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)