User talk:Wayland/2005

3rd Rock from the Sun

Hi Wayland. I like what you wrote on here about the similarities with Commedia del Arte, but I wondered if this what the authors intended, or if it's just something you noticed? I suggest replying at Talk:3rd Rock From The Sun DJ Clayworth 14:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) June 28, 2005 04:18 (UTC)

Comedy police, etc.

I think what caught the articles in the VfD process was the titles - "Comedy police" brings to mind police who oversee comedy (e.g. "thought police"), as opposed to police featured in comedy. If the articles had been titled "Police in comedy", "Priests in comedy", I don't think they would have attracted the attention of the VfD police. That being said, since the point of all of them is essentially the same (that taking down stuffy authority figures is a well-used source of comedy), it's better for the reader to have them all merged together into one holistic piece. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 14:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - since the article is now in the main namespace, I shall archive the version in my user space. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:43, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Prejudice

Please read my comment below your vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Semitism in Poland. --Ttyre 20:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were not intended to be "...mud-slinging contests". I just wanted (and still would like) to know what makes you think that Poland is a major hot spot for anti-Semitism. --Ttyre 17:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for being slow to respond to your question. This partly because I felt insulted by your tone and partly because I'm finding very little time in which to log on to the internet at the moment as I have to work long hours at my job. However, I've posted an external link on the Anti-Semitism in Poland article. The link is to the Council of Europe's third report on Poland and enables any unbiased researcher to see recent info on the topic. I'll tackle your question by adding more information and sources to the article itself as and when time permits over the next week or two. --wayland 23:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Council of Europe's report on Poland, for balance, please read reports on other members of the European Union. Also, I recommend to you some additional statistics/reports on that issue: 2003 US Department of State Report, and ADL's reports: US, international. -Ttyre 01:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voting results comments

Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#When_delete_votes_means_to_keep. --Ttyre 17:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi from a fan

Hi Wayland, I just found out today, that aside from excellent history of subcultures in the 20th century, you also did the history of literature and alternative society. So you could say I am a fan. Could you check upon some edits I have made on Underground culture and transgressive art, please? Thanks in advance.--Jahsonic 11:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC) --Jahsonic 15:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, very useful indeed --Jahsonic 08:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just rewrote the entry for Underground music and I get the feeling that we need to differentiate between underground culture and underground cultural products. These include underground film, cult movies, underground music and a curiously absent article: cult fiction (which re-directs to cult following as it is now). In short, all products that develop a cult following. Thanks for your input. and if you have any ideas to start the cult fiction article. I guess it would include such authors as (see here, scroll down to Hi to Wayland).

the underground category: I noticed 15 minutes ago that you'd been doing that, very useful. I find them tricky sometimes, those categories. How very appropriate to include Dostoesvski

Pseudoscience

There has been no cfd of category:pseudoscience. Consensus is that is a useful category. Please do not rename important categories without looking at its discussion pages and cfring it first to allow the community to reach consensus. Also, I'm sorry for being so harsh if you saw the previous version of this message. Dunc|☺ 16:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, you should not make drastic changes to categorisation on the basis of your own personal POV. We have reached consensus on category talk:pseudoscience and talk:pseudoscience that renaming it would not be a very good idea and that a valid judgement call in each individual case can be made on whether or not it is pseudoscience or not. This can be achieved in a NPOV way by taking a sociological definition of the term; i.e. we accept as pseudoscience what the scientific community considers to be pseudoscience, which of course is subject to change. Of course there is a demarcation problem between pseudoscience, protoscience, fringe science and bad science, but that can be got around.

It is a good idea to be bold, but for potentially controversial issues it is better to ask on talk first. There are procedures to follow - go to category talk:pseudoscience and make your objections there. Likewise go to talk:numerology. Ask for outside opinions at WP:RFC. You seem a decent chap, I am sorry if I upset the categorisation for numerology, I was just blindly rolling back all your edits. Dunc|☺ 20:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is pseudoscience a "negative" classification? It has a specific definition, i.e. that which purports to science, be but is not. It is a characteristic that is possessed by such fields of "study". Dunc|☺ 00:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just so this discussion makes slightly more sense here's the missing bits of it (copy-pasted from User talk:duncharris):

[edit]

RE: Pseudoscience

Hey, don't worry! I agree that pseudoscience is a useful category and if there were a vote to delete it I would vote keep. I'm only re-classifying articles which don't belong there (because putting them there would be extremely POV). --wayland 16:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Well... by now, of course, I've had time to see you didn't merely question some of my edits but actually reverted a whole block of them including taking "Numerology" out of the "Numerology" category. Now that's just emotional reacting, not reasoned or thoughtful. If you look at the talk page for the pseudoscience category you'll see there's considerable dissatisfaction with the way the category has been used. There's nothing wrong with putting "Pseudo-mathematics" in a "pseudo-science" category but putting many of the other articles in was just prejudice and shouldn't have happened in the first place. --wayland 18:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

- I read the discussion and I see that pseudoscience is regarded as POV. Given the category has not been deleted is there a debate as to whether numerology is NOT regarded as psudoscience? It was not mentioned in the discussion at all. Surely, at least, it should be included in the numerology category. What is the rationale for removing it from the that category? David D. (Talk) 19:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

- - It doesn't make logical sense to categorise items according to what they'rw not regarded as. Numerology is not regarded as an apple, an orange or a grapefruit but there is no logical reason to mention these facts in either the article or the discussion. I've got to rush off to work now for 8 hours but I'll continue replying when I get back. Before i go I'd just like to make it clear I'm not a believer in numerology, astrology, creationism or any of these subjects, however I am a believer in logic rather than prejudice. Anyway, gotta go... --wayland 23:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

So it's in the context of the above that we come to the question: "How is pseudoscience a "negative" classification? It has a specific definition, i.e. that which purports to science, be but is not. It is a characteristic that is possessed by such fields of "study"."

Actually, any subject in the world can be studied in a scientific or an unscientific way. Physics and chemistry are not sciences unless approached with a scientific methodology, and the same applies to numerology and to many of the subjects currently listed in the pseudoscience category. Labelling an entire field of study as pseudoscience is like slamming the door on the possibility of applying a strict methodology to these areas of interest. There's no reason why someone can't apply strict science to the study of whether specific numbers have specific qualities and whether predictions of some sort can be made based on such qualities. If someone does so, then they would be studying numerology scientifically, not pseudoscientifically. The label "pseudoscience" refers to the method used to study, rather than the subject studied. Numerology itself is neither science nor pseudoscience, but the method used to study it must be one or the other. That choice is up to the individual doing the study. --wayland 11:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wayland. The NLP pseudoscience category is correct as far as I can tell from quotes, and from the present state of scientific findings, continued claims of NLP advocates, and other characteristics such as use of strange terminology, use of anecdotes as evidence etc. There is an interesting reference book that may help: Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience William F. Williams, general editor. NLP is listed there. It simply lists the area and gives a description rather than argue for why it is a pseudoscience. Regards HeadleyDown 09:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ani DiFranco

I am wondering why you added the World Music category to her, when she is more of an avant garde or alternative genre musician. Her article doesn't mention world music. If you think this category is appropriate, why don't you add something about it to the article? --Blainster 19:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. done as you suggested, more to come --wayland 01:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, you've added the World Music cat tag to a ton of artists many of whom are about as far as WM as you can get. What are you thinking? Jgm 23:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell which ones you're referring to? --wayland 01:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haidouks

In what sense is Taraful Haiducilor "world music"? Their music seem to me to be very specifically Romanian, I can't think of any deliberate incorporation of foreign elements. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:56, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Taraful Haiducilor (aka Taraf de Haidouks) won the BBC World Music Award in 2002 see: [1] and [2] --wayland 01:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World Music

Okay, now look.... (ahem) ....yesterday I edited the "World Music" article a bit ('cause it definitely needs to be sorted out a bit) and then I had to go to work. Today I've come in from work and found there's been some differences of opinion going on up and down the World Music page. Okay, fair enough, I'm keeping my eyes open virtually with matchsticks after a long hard 8 hour shift but I guess I can think of a way of re-editing the page so that it will carry it's own substantiating evidence with each entry. I'll get started on that... just give me a minute to make some bloomin' tea... :-) --wayland 11:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, enjoy your tea, but I must say at the outset that any re-casting of the term "world music" to include such artists as Lucinda Williams and Nickel Creek is likely to be highly problematic. Jgm 13:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Wayland—Thanks for the heads up regarding "accidently". I've never seen that accepted as a valid spelling of that word. However, you appear to be correct in your assessment, so I'll halt my purging of the "accidently" spelling from wikipedia. Cheers! :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 16:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I've always used "accidentally". -- Jmabel | Talk 06:50, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Wall Street

I ask you to reconsider your recent edit at Wall Street. I'm not going to revert you, but I think this sort of trivia does nothing to enhance an article. Ask yourself: is a general reader looking up "Wall Street" in an encyclopedia likely to be looking for information about the fact that 10cc happened to refer to "Wall Street" in a song (not even one of their better songs, I might add). In my view, this is the sort of thing that is useless to our readers, and serves only to decrease our credibility as a serious reference work. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, y'see that's the old POV thing isn't it? One man's meat is another man's poison.... or what one person regards as "useless to our readers" is precisely what another person is looking for. Trivia is of great interest to many people who may not be so serious-minded. It isn't just the serious-minded people and the scientists who use a popular web-encyclopedia. The really serious-minded would likely use a specialist work of reference instead of an encyclopedia intended for all users. I'm sure there is a case for developing a series of specialist wikipedias such as the "Wikipedia of Science", the "Wikipedia of Economics", the "Arts Wikipedia" etc. However, we're currently editing a wikipedia for all seasons, all tastes, even the trivia buffs and people who (gawd help us) actually like 10cc. We probably shouldn't second-guess what our readers are going to want. For instance, I could probably find a g'zillion articles which look completely pointless to me, but which are of great interest to someone else... Surely it's the way the world is...? --wayland 10:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I like 10cc (although I like Godley and Creme a lot better than Stewart and Gouldman, and think the post-Godley-and-Creme 10cc was a sorry affair). I played them on the radio in the 1970s and was probably one of the first DJs in the US to do so; I could probably still sing many of their songs word for word and note for note (including G&C's post first 10cc album L, among their best work); hell, I could probably do a fair rendition of the chorus of "Wall Street Shuffle", but I doubt anyone remembers the verses unless they've listened to it very recently, becuase it's not one of their better songs. I simply feel that trivia like this falls below the level of notability. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who wars

Don't want to rain on your parade, but I don't think that a category for "Doctor Who wars" is warranted. The Thal-Kaled war is ancient history and covered quite well in the Thal and Kaled entries, and if we were to start listing every tiny war mentioned in the series (and never really seen), we'd wind up with lots of tiny stub articles. At best, this should simply be a List of wars in Doctor Who. I am going to redirect the Thal-Kaled war to History of the Daleks, and recategorize Time War (Doctor Who). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard that particular song, but I'm sure some of my colleagues in the filk music world have. We're quite shameless in appropriating anything and everything we think is cool that way - that's how folk music is. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV check

What, in your opinion, completes a POV check (such that articles marked as such can have this tag removed)? -- 70.29.131.204 03:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this question must be referring to the POV check I requested on the page Emin society. In the case of that page I think the POV check should be ongoing rather than hastily brought to premature resolution. The original version of the page was written in Emin codings and read like an emin publication rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. I've tried to balance it but I really prefer input from lots of other Wikipedians including people who've never heard of the emin before and therefore can read the article without bias. I myself attended emin meetings for six and a half years (from spring 1974 to autumn 1980) in London, England and, in my opinion I was thoroughly hypnotised, brainwashed and under their control during those years. I consider myself lucky to have gotten away from them and reclaimed my self-will. One way of approaching neutrality in the article is to have input from emin supporters and from people like myself who know a lot about it (but would rather we didn't!). However, the degree of NPOV achieved by putting these opposite views together is imperfect and, I feel, could be helped by the input of truly neutral parties. That's why I suggest the POV check should be ongoing for the time being, until the article seems more well-rounded in the different views of emin and emin-related issues. --wayland 05:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Emin society is just one of the articles to which you've added this template. There appears to be agreement in Template_talk:POV-check that it should not be used to stigmatize articles that some people simply don't like. Again, what completes a POV check? -- 70.29.131.204 23:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've looked through the list of articles I've edited in the last couple of weeks and I can only find one other article to which I've added the POV check template. To complete such a check would, I believe, involve some discussion on the talk page associated with the article in question. If no neutral version of the article can be arrived at by discussion then the template {{NPOV}} should probably be employed to replace {{POV check}}. --wayland 23:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of Science Fiction rewrite

Hi. I saw you recently made an edit to the article History of science fiction. I have been working on a significant rewrite of the article, which I have placed at History of science fiction/rewrite. Please comment on the rewrite and whether it should replace the current article at the talk page.Ferret-aaron 15:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Some of your objections have been incorporated into the article. Other objections have been addressed on the talk page. I've provided three or four legitimate sources arguing that Lucian and Gilgamesh belong in a history of SF. The only thing still really unresolved is the section on current SF, from the '90s on. I hope we can work the problems out. At present I like neither the original nor the one I wrote very much, and I invite you to give a try at writing a replacement. I am 20 years old, I started reading science fiction in about 1995, so clearly I don't necessarily have the best perspective on the historical context. But here is my sense of the period, and the reason why I wrote the section as I did:

It is my feeling that this period has been characterized A) by the eruption of Cyberpunk into the mainstream in major ways. B)by the publication of Sterling's Mirrorshades anthology of cyberpunk, followed by Hartwell's Ascent of Wonder anthology of hard SF, and the announcement of this ideological distinction. C)the progress of actual written science fiction showing that cyberpunk and mainline SF have more or less merged together, despite the ideological conflict

Since I characterize cyberpunk as science fiction set in the present or near-present and mainline SF as science fiction with a more extrapolative approach, Clute's quotation summarizes the larger meaning of this. He says you can either interpret events as saying that technology has caught up with science fiction to such a degree that science fiction has outlived its purpose, or you can say that science fiction has successfully predicted the future, been vindicated, and will continue to do so. The evidence can bear out either conclusion, really. Ferret-aaron 23:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]