User talk:WAS 4.250/Archive 05

Wikipedia is evolving in the direction of being MORE open to encyclopedic contributions and LESS open to unencyclopedic contributions and we are characterizing this as Wikipedia becoming MORE open.

Elvis Presley[edit]

Welcome back. I hope your surgery went well. Maybe you can assist at the Elvis Presley page, to get that in order. There is considerable disruption with two editors mostly: Onefortyone, who has been the subject of arbcom rulings and a great disruption and user 195.... who is anonymous AOL user. I've been attempting to clean the article up and have tried to work with Onefortyone to no avail. I am afraid he is not in the editing business to make credible edits but to forward an agenda regarding celebrities including Elvis. Your balanced nature and approach to organizing a page would greatly help out. I've tried to provide an organized approach to this article so that it can be featured in August, the time of his passing. Right now it is under protection. Whatever advice you can give would help. Thanks and best wishes. --Northmeister 00:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you just said and wish you the best in your efforts. I have the impression there are several admins watching the situation who can assist you in terms of dealing with the named two disruptive influences. I would delete everything not backed by a source. I would also delete (as giving undue weight) items whose importance is neither obvious nor sourced, example: publicity-hound accusations (Oh look, I can get my name in the paper by claiming Elvis is alive/alien/gay/racist/whatever.) I've chosen not to jump in just yet. WAS 4.250 15:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wecome back[edit]

Welcome back, take care of yourself as you recover! Don't overdo it! KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's good advice. I'm still not fully recovered and may disappear for a day or two occationally over the next few weeks. I'm just taking it a day at a time. WAS 4.250 15:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American System[edit]

Was, Thanks for your reply, but I am mystified by your response. I was involved in that article because of a history of orginal research being added to it. I think you were aware of my concerns, and you had said that you would make sure that orignal research was removed, but that it'd be better if you did so without my involvement. I took your suggestion in good faith, but it appears that the issues I was concerned about have not been addressed at all, and that the orignal research has been expanded rather than removed. Since this was your idea, I'm hoping that you can explain your understanding of the meaning of "no original research". The clearest exapmples, out of many, are the inclusion of the Centennial Expo as an example of the success of the American System, and the descriptions of 20th century economic policies as being a part of the American System? Since you have taken responsibility for the outcome, I'm sure you can tell me why this material is in the article. -Will Beback 04:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Centennial Expo in the article? WAS 4.250 15:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, glad that got removed (I must have been looking at an interim draft). Even so, the material goes far beyond what the sources will bear. For example, the "Evolution" section describes how the AS changed names in the 20th century, but the sources are from the 19th century. Further, the AS is not tethered to historical facts (the history section omits everything before 1860), but becomes a concept of high tariffs, a concept which appears to be the original research of an editor. Any other encyclopedia describes the AS as an economic policy of the early-to-mid 19th century. This concept of "evolution" is original research, and the article doesn't cover the actual American System. I thinnk it's time to either re-write the article or split it out so that this fringe concept is in an article by a different name and we have an article about the verifiable, standard version of history. -Will Beback 22:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, it is you who have no clue about American history or economics - the article is well sourced - there was originally a separate article involving the speech by Clay and his program, the centennial belongs, was sourced, but respecting collaboration I agreed to take it out (something you should learn)...this is nonsense and a perfect example of your character. --Northmeister 22:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WAS, Do you now see what the above user is all about? Arbcom members do you see? Political agenda, wiki-stalking, and harassment. He even followed me to the Elvis Presley page and interferred there. It's disgraceful and disrespectful - and he has no clue about economics or the history of the USA - that Clay's program and the American/National System are two distinct things and not fringe. I'm tired of his rhetoric and harassing nature. I've repeatedly offered overtures for cooperation elsewhere and he repreatedly ignores these efforts. I ask he be watched - that his arbcom cases be reviewed along with other charges brought against him for similar tactics -because you can predict exactly what he will do, as he has done in the past - harass, stalk, disrupt, and intimidate. What more can I say. --Northmeister 22:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chill out, Northmeister. My focus is on the article. As it stands it does not cover the topic properly while it devotes considerable space to a tangent. The idea that there are two American Systems of economics is an original concept for which I have never seen any scholarly support. -Will Beback 05:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will, what makes you think either economic policies or national economies do not evolve? WAS 4.250 09:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economic theories do evolve, but then they become new economic theories. To say that the 18th century ideas of Hamilton are directly connected/contrasted to the 21st century ideas of Bush, Buchanan, et al., yet have no new (I mean really new) name, without an attributed source connecting them, is just a flight of fancy. Almost the entire 20th-century section could be moved to some article on U.S. tariff policy. The connection of those long sections to the AS article appear to rest on the slender shoulders of passing references by two authors, Lind and Gill. I don't think we should form a concept of the system ourselves, but rather we should verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Finally, the article seems to gravitate towards the view of a specific policy as a general concept. Most political initiatives have limited lives. The concept of the "American System" as a cross-millenial philosophy is not mainstream. 20th century protectionism is not the "American System", and discussions of it belong in a different article. -Will Beback 10:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is much truth in what you have just said. I'm sure we can work together to further improve the article. Let me comment off the top of my head on your comments, so you can get an idea of what we might address first (after, North does the merge). I recommend you identify what can be improved about the article that we both agree on and save comtentious stuff for last, hoping that increased mutual understanding will grow as we work together. I am hoping North will be helpful in this process. I am expecting that he will. I am counting on it. But now, onto some off the cuff comments:

Economic theories do evolve, but then they become new economic theories. Theories are like species in that it is a simplification to think of all examples as being the same. Individuals vary, as do individuals' understandings of theories. It is a simplification to think of all theories with different names as being so different that none can be thought of as the same thing under a different name. One looks at the substance of a policy or economy or theory and comparing its componets one can see the relationship between things with different names that yet identify or signify the same or near same thing. If x=(a,b,c) and y=(a,b,c) then x=y even if no one actually says so. What looks like original research to someone unfamiliar with a subject can be so obvious to the experts that they don't bother to mention it. Then again, sometimes it is original research.
To say that the 18th century ideas of Hamilton are directly connected/contrasted to the 21st century ideas of Bush, Buchanan, et al., yet have no new (I mean really new) name, without an attributed source connecting them, is just a flight of fancy. Agreed.
Almost the entire 20th-century section could be moved to some article on U.S. tariff policy. I don't have a problem with this in theory, but just as we are merging the other article back to this one, let's keep everything in one place for now with the idea that at some point pieces of it may need to be moved elsewhere.
The connection of those long sections to the AS article appear to rest on the slender shoulders of passing references by two authors, Lind and Gill. I'm hoping to avoid this kind of a discussion, cause then I'd have to go investigate Lind and Gill. But it may come to that.
I don't think we should form a concept of the system ourselves, but rather we should verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. We have no busness writing an article about a concept we don't even understand. Not understanding does not improve one's ability as an editor. I'm guessing I'm misunderstanding you here.
Finally, the article seems to gravitate towards the view of a specific policy as a general concept. Yes. The general concept is the conceptual context of the specific verbalizations and implementations of the system. Which is crucially important in understanding its relationship to prior and succeeding policies and economies and their verbalizations. And those prior and succeeding systems should be linked to here and discussd here to the extent that they illustate this system.
Most political initiatives have limited lives. The political initiative of Clay is to be a subsection of this article, not the entire article.
The concept of the "American System" as a cross-millenial philosophy is not mainstream. Do you have a source for that?
20th century protectionism is not the "American System" True, but protectionism was part of the american sytem.
discussions of it belong in a different article. Discussing the componet parts of the American System using illustrations from whatever time and place help with that illustration is appropriate. Conflating illustration with identification is intellectually sloppy, but when the time and place are contiguous, the concept of evolution serves. WAS 4.250 11:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I think that in this case, rather than "x=(a,b,c) and y=(a,b,c) then x=y", what we have is "X=(a, b, c), only 'b' and 'c' don't really matter and 'f' is mostly the same as 'a', therefore, since Y=(f), X=Y".

4. I'm hoping to avoid this kind of a discussion, cause then I'd have to go investigate Lind and Gill.

Without Lind and Gill half of the article doesn't make sense. They are the basic sources for our material on the American System in the 20th century. I've got Lind's books on order.

5. I don't think we should form a concept of the system ourselves, but rather we should verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. What I meant is that our job, as encyclopedia editors, is to report what others have researched, not to create new hypotheses.

7. The political initiative of Clay is to be a subsection of this article, not the entire article.

It should be the major part of the article because it is the major part of the topic. Economic nationalism is a different topic.

8. The mainstream view of the American System can be found in any encyclopedia or standard book on American history. At most, a few will acknowledge that parts of the system were implemented under Lincoln. Otherwise they limit themselves to the describing it as Clay's program which essentially ended under Jackson.

9. A wheel is a part of a car, but a wheel is not a car. The American System was a set of interlocking policies intended to accomplished specific goals. The use of tariffs to protect infant industries was just one element of the system.

10. Discussing the component parts of the American System using illustrations from whatever time and place help with that illustration is appropriate. Conflating illustration with identification is intellectually sloppy, but when the time and place are contiguous, the concept of evolution serves.

I don't think we need to add tariffs from the 1920s or 1970s as illustrations of an 19th century program. There are plenty of actual examples from the 1800s, examples that are widely acknowledged as part of the politics and history of the American System.

-Will Beback 21:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree enough with what you just said to not wish to dispute any of it. How about if we now take this discussion to the talk page of the article? I believe the next step is for you to identify a specific change that, after reading what I and North said, you believe helps move us forward. If you let me implement such changes, maybe we can make faster progress. (I'm hoping that will be the case anyway, but then I'd hoped for less emotion from North, too.) I think the key here is to solve every problem but where to put the content first. Then the content can be moved or retitled as needed. At any point, the work can occur on one or more sandbox pages so going live with too much stuff under the "wrong" article name doesn't have to be a problem. WAS 4.250 22:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will not accept change to the article as it stands now; until sources are provided from Will Beback with quotes as to indicate his statements. I consider Will to be a disruptive editor who is pushing a POV agenda, does not collaborate or work in harmony, makes no useful contributions and has broken the wikipedia standard of stalking several times. Without definitive sources indicating his POV then I will accept no statement from him and no changes to the article as it stand and as it is well sourced. --Northmeister 23:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will not accept change to the article as it stands now; until sources are provided from Will Beback with quotes as to indicate his statements. You don't own the article.

No I do not own the artcle - but I must insist on SOURCES that are VERIFIABLE for the edits and deletes he makes due to his constant disruption in the past with myself and others - I've given my sources - Where are his? That's all I ask. Simple really. --Northmeister 04:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horse before the cart. He has yet to make any suggestion on the talk page of the article in this current effort. WAS 4.250 04:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I consider Will to be a disruptive editor who is pushing a POV agenda, does not collaborate or work in harmony, makes no useful contributions and has broken the wikipedia standard of stalking several times. You asked him to edit with you on the Elvis article. So you are insane or manipulative.

He stalked me to the Elvis article FIRST - I then offered for him to come back as a sign of reconcilation - to help out there and build up a working history - to later use on the American System page. That was my thinking for doing that - neither insane or manipulative. --Northmeister 04:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Whatever. WAS 4.250 04:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without definitive sources indicating his POV then I will accept no statement from him and no changes to the article as it stand and as it is well sourced. You don't own the article. WAS 4.250 04:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not. Again, it is reasonable to expect sources - as I gave mine. It is one of the criteria for editing - to offer sources. So, where are his - that is not unreasonable. --Northmeister 04:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, he has yet to make any suggestion on the talk page of the article in this current effort. ask for a source after he makes an unsourced suggestion, not before. This is a new effort. WAS 4.250 04:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for resolution[edit]

WAS, if I recieve an open public apology for false accusations and allegations of my political associations and for doing 'original research' by Will Beback, then we can get off to a fresh start. I think you, Will, and myself should start at the Elvis page, work to improve that - then move on to a page of his chosing - work to improve that - then move onto the American System page - where having worked together on two separate articles - work might progress with better understanding. As soon as that apology posted on his talk and my talk page, and on the American System talk page is forth coming - we can move forward. --Northmeister 02:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if I recieve an open public apology for false accusations and allegations of my political associations and for doing 'original research' by Will Beback, then we can get off to a fresh start. True. And if you kiss Will's ass we can also get off to a fresh start. I'm not going to hold my breath for either.
I think you, Will, and myself should start at the Elvis page, work to improve that - then move on to a page of his chosing - work to improve that - then move onto the American System page - where having worked together on two separate articles - work might progress with better understanding. As soon as that apology posted on his talk and my talk page, and on the American System talk page is forth coming - we can move forward. This is nothing short of delusional thinking. Please tell me you are not actually this insane. I find this scary. WAS 4.250 04:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WAS, I do not understand your philosphy in deleting my offer of resolution nor my comments. Have you read the actual history of Will Beback and myself? Do you understand what he is all about, where the emotion comes from? You can always contact me by email. I am unsure of what your trying to do. I am always willing to work with anyone. But I am not willing to work with someone who falsey accuses me, stalks my edits, harasses me etc. All this is documented. He is only at the American System page with an POV agenda and has offered no sources and no credible edits - and will not accept any offers of working together. I would hate to lose your help, I deeply respect wikipedia, the process, and yourself for working with me to improve the American System article and for your disposition. But until I receive an apology from Will Beback and an acknowledgment of his wrong-doing - How can I accept his credibility - I can't - due to his history and I will not accept his edits without SOURCES. --Northmeister 04:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your philosphy in deleting my offer of resolution nor my comments. Now that you have read my comments, do you see why I thought it best to delete them rather than reply to them? Are you happier now that you insisted on me responding?
Have you read the actual history of Will Beback and myself? Yes.
Do you understand what he is all about, where the emotion comes from? Yes. That's why I'm still here trying to help.
You can always contact me by email. I don't use email.
I am unsure of what your trying to do. Trying to make wikipedia better by calming a quarrel and helping out with history/economy articles.
I am always willing to work with anyone. That's bullshit unless you take back the "only if you kiss my ass" stuff you are telling Will.
But I am not willing to work with someone who falsey accuses me, stalks my edits, harasses me etc. All this is documented. He is only at the American System page with an POV agenda and has offered no sources and no credible edits - and will not accept any offers of working together. I beg you to ignore him and let me deal with him. Last time when I asked both of you to not directly address each other, he complied and you did not comply.
I would hate to lose your help, I deeply respect wikipedia, the process, and yourself for working with me to improve the American System article and for your disposition. Thanks, but actions speak louder than words. Back off !!! You don't own the article. Stop making ultimatums.
But until I receive an apology from Will Beback and an acknowledgment of his wrong-doing - How can I accept his credibility - I can't - due to his history and I will not accept his edits without SOURCES. You don't own the article. Back off. Cool down. Chill out. Get a clue. Stop being so scary. The world is not about you. WAS 4.250 04:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Proposal[edit]

Trusting in your honesty and intentions thus far, I will leave to you and Will Beback to work on that article for a period that you wish to set without my interference. In other words, give it a run - I request one thing - any deletions made be backed up with clear reasoning and sources indicating why. I will watch and allow the two of you to do what you feel is best - I then will comment after the time period you request. What do you say? Ps. I really am not insane, nor scary - at least I try not to be :) --Northmeister 04:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much calmed by your calm reply to my fears. Thank you for that. But I am counting on your calm sourced responses to Will, so please do not simply watch in silence. You know this material better than I do. Restraint in your emotional response would be a big help. But I need your expertise in guiding this effort forward. Thank you again for calming me down from my fears; you really had me going there. WAS 4.250 05:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may revert my reverts of your trying to help out earlier...sorry about all that. --Northmeister 05:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a short wiki-break. If you need to contact me, with any questions, just leave me a message at javier@samerica.com. I shall return. --Northmeister 05:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WAS, I thought it best for me to stay away a 'short' bit to see if any movement could be made on the American System page. I read your comment to Flo, and watched your discussion with Will. I really appreciate your efforts. I thought maybe movement towards resolution could be made. I was ready to compromise a bit to get the article dispute over...I regret not following your advice and offering the other view so to speak. I don't blame you if you wish to walk away from this craziness. What I've done is provide a A-Z listing of sources. I expect the same from Will Beback - I reject both LaRouche and Von Mises material as they are both fringe views - it seems that is all he is quoting from thus "McKinley is last to practice American System" - that is LaRouche theory not historic or accurate. Anyway, thanks again for all the effort - I welcome you there still to help out. I will do my best - but I will try not to let my temper (Jefferson said count to 100!) get out of hand or my emotions and take your dignified approach as an example. I might just move on - leaving the article there to be castrated from reality - and so much work thats been done with it :( Not sure, but that's life. Well, hope to work with you on another project someday if not this one, as I appreciate your balanced and fair standards and knowledge of editing. the Best, always. --Northmeister 07:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WAS, glad that you’re back editing again. Hope that you are doing well. Today I got the meaning of your user name for the first time. Proves that the plain can be creative. : - ) I’ve been distracted by real world stuff (all good) and have not put much effort into working on Wikipedia related issues the last few weeks. Going to stay that way for the next month until my daughter goes back to college.

You've done a fantastic job working on this article with them. I’m sure that I have nothing more to add. I’ve found both Will and Northmeister to be reasonable people. That makes me hopeful that your guidance has gotten them over the hump and they can find a way to work this out. Take care, FloNight ^talk 23:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MfD[edit]

Regarding Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman, MfD debates are run for 8 days, then generally closed by an admin. This has been open FAR LESS then the normal time, and does not appear to be heading towards a speedy close. I've restored the mfd notice on Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. WAS 4.250 10:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed economy[edit]

Summaries like "removing section" [1] are not valid explanations. If you look at revision history you will see that FrancisTyers also didn’t offer any explanations for his edits. -- Vision Thing -- 13:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to improve the article, feel free to do so. A blanket revert that makes changes you haven't bothered looking into does not make sense. WAS 4.250 13:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve looked into those changes and they didn’t make sense to me. Since no explanation was given for them, I reverted them. It wasn’t a blanket revert (for example I kept correction in spelling - publically->publicly). -- Vision Thing -- 13:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you looked into american school vs, american system? WAS 4.250 14:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see why you thought that I was doing a blind revert. That was a mistake on my part. I meant to correct that to, but I forgot. Do you have any objections on other reverts? -- Vision Thing -- 14:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted paragraph needs to either stay deleted or else be made NPOV as it is an extremest view. The other changes I don't care one way or the other. WAS 4.250 14:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#External links for information on how and why sections with links to other websites should be named "External links" per consensus. Thank you. — Deckill e r 05:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read it. You are welcome. I find it both confused and inferior to the use of "Sources and notes" and "Further reading" as subsection headings. I chose to use what is best and not what is "recommended". WAS 4.250 05:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, the fuller treatment of the topic is covered at Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices. -Will Beback 05:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ACiting_sources#Further_reading.2Fexternal_links WAS 4.250 05:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've already barged in let me say that I've always liked "Further reading". It's a practical section for listing additional sources that weren't actually used for the article. I guess it hasn't been entirely deprecated. -Will Beback 07:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A while back (three months ... eight months ?) there was a poll somewhere on wikipedia I ran into in which changing the recommendations from "external links" etc to other suggestions like "further reading" was discussed and voted on. It's a shame votes were counted rather than arguments evaluated, because what won was pretty much "we are used to this older way of labeling subsections, let's not make nomenclature changes just because of accuracy". WAS 4.250 13:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer the "further reading" section; since it is still distinguishable from "see also" and it has a much more encyclopedic tone. Since both methods seem to be common and fairly legal, I may start using it in my own works as well. — Deckill e r 20:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend to everybody: Do whatever makes the article better taking into account whoever is contributing. WAS 4.250 23:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you are pissing me off[edit]

I am going to tell you this just once. If you ever again publish anything on OSINT without a reference to my web site, I am going to black ball you where it will really hurt. I consider you to be a world-class dip-shit for failing to credit my work. Robert Steele 23:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Steele is a new and notable Wikipedian. His credentials are solid. He has donated $$$ to the Foundation and will be attending Wikimania 2006, but he is brand-new to the Wikipedia culture. He put a message on your user page rather than your talk page and I moved it to your talk page on his behalf (check the hist. on your user page to confirm). He is rather accomplished in the subject, but, as you may know, real-life experts can find the consensus process of Wikipedia frustrating. I also put a message on his talk page to explain why you might consider his tone to be a personal attack. What can I say? Uh, do not take it personally. Uh, WP:BITE and all that. -- 67.116.255.18 03:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion please.[edit]

Please see my comments in discussion on Forgiveness. Thanks. Ste4k 15:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on that talk page:Forgiveness is a fundamental spiritual concept found in every human spiritual community. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Singling out ACIM is giving them undue weight. WAS 4.250 21:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC) - - - - WAS 4.250 16:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Thanks for your opinion. If you are interested in where the mention originally came from, please see "A Course in Miracles". If you value your sanity, on the other hand, please disregard that invitation. :) Ste4k 17:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberately inaccessable for the handicapped[edit]

I'm red-green color blind and this page is black on black to my eyes. I have to click edit to read it. If you wish to respond, please do on my talk page. It's kinda like stairs-in-the-front and a ramp-in-the-back to someone in a wheelchair. I don't feel welcome on this page. WAS 4.250 20:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! :) I have nearly the opposite problem. Normal pages, like your own, are so bright and loud with huge letters that it appears to me like everyone is shouting. I experimented with several types of font at the normal size and colors as well. Still it didn't matter much. I also tried to get other people to make their comments on top of the page, but that only seemed to anger people that were basically making personal attacks anyhow. Articles that are long don't bother me much, as long as they have pictures along the way travelling from the top to the bottom. Some of my favorites and good examples are Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman,Lou Dobbs (I think he's cute), Linked list, AVL tree (my former profession), Associated Press (former employer), Ku Klux Klan (something with lots of history and pictures that I am looking at researching soon), Marianne Williamson (an article that I rewrote that hadn't any sources). If you ever need to contact me, just leave a note, and we'll talk on your page, okay? Ste4k 21:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever need to contact me, just leave a note, and we'll talk on your page, okay? Okay, works for me.
Normal pages, like your own, are so bright and loud with huge letters that it appears to me like everyone is shouting. I don't understand. I remember reading about something starting with "s" where people with it smell sights, feel sounds, etc. What's the deal with you exactly, if you know and care to share? WAS 4.250 02:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to "synesthesia", but no, my eyesight is simply very poor with age and sitting in front of a screen day after day for hours on end.

File:Mboverload.jpg

Screenshot of what it looks like to me. Now some admin has made it a point to complain about my page on some talk board. It has disrupted the entire evening. I haven't seen your comments yet, but will as soon as I calm down some. Ste4k 03:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to "synesthesia" Yes.
my eyesight is simply very poor with age and sitting in front of a screen day after day for hours on end. Without my glasses, objects three inches from my eye are in focus but they are out of focus if moved a half inch in either direction. I don't think "poor vision" means the same thing to you and me.
Screenshot of what it looks like to me. I don't understand.
Now some admin has made it a point to complain about my page on some talk board. the admin notice board? I noticed that after I made my comment.
It has disrupted the entire evening. Ignore it if it bothers you. It's only cyberspace. Just like I'm gonna ignore your black on black page.
I haven't seen your comments yet, but will as soon as I calm down some. I don't understand. WAS 4.250 03:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your opinion please[edit]

Please see Talk:A_Course_in_Miracles#Request_for_comment_suggestion. I hope that I correctly voiced your earlier concerns. Ste4k 22:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology Wiki[edit]

Hey man,

Sorry if it looks like I've been 'spamming' wikipedia. The Psychology Wiki is entirely non-profit based, none of the admins, such as myself and Lifeartist are making any money from it. Wikia, inc make money from the Google based advertising on our site, along with all the other Wikia, which seems fair enough as they are hosting us and providing bandwidth and technical support (their staff are very good and helpful). Jim Wales founded Wikia along with Angela Beesley to create new Wikis and cover their costs.

I'd prefer to be funded by a psychology Society like the APA, but we have recieved little support from them so far. Perhaps when Wikia start marketing us we will get enough contributors and notice that one day we will be able to move to a grant funded model instead of an ad funded model. I would prefer this. On the other hand, although I'm a zealous supporter of Wikipedia's free knowledge model, I haven't made a donation to the Wikimedia foundation to help support it financially. Have you?

You are right that we shouldn't threaten Wikipedias non-profit status, but I'm not in this for the money (I wish I was as at the moment I'm not sure I can make this months rent). I just need to raise the profile of our Wiki so that it will work as a free way of distributing and integrating psychology knowledge. Wikipedia editors know what they are doing already, which is why I am asking them; new users of the Psychology Wiki don't necessarily know how to contribute to it.

Hope that all makes sense... Mostly Zen 11:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using Wikipedia to raise the profile of anything is spamming. I don't know if you have, are or will spam. But I do know your posts are recommending spamming and I am pointing out that is inappropriate. Everyone wants to raise the profile of something - their website, their political point of view, their favorite tv show - whatever. Raising the profile of specific parts of the encyclopedia to motive efforts to improve the encyclopedia is even protested against when people get carried away with it. Like spamming "good article" everywhere. Best of luck to you, but please don't use wikipedia as an advertizing venue. Even for something that makes Jimbo money (and best of luck to him too - note the discrete ad for political wikia at the top of Jimbo's talk page - it is tasteful and appropriate - it is not spammed all over the place). WAS 4.250 13:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to an earlier mention I made of the Psychology Wiki using the words ~~indiscriminately spamming~~? I meant that as a joke. Sorry if you thought I was recommending spamming, I wasn't and I can't stand the stuff. I thought spamming was telling people about something when they didn't want to know?

I have only written and put the logo of the Psychology Wiki in the pages Psychology, Psychology Portal and Wikipedia Psychology Project, as well as Jim Wale's page. Other than that we have a very discrete template that goes at the bottom of article which we've copied across from our Wiki to improve Wikipedia. All these articles are relating to Psychology. Gil, the CEO of Wikia, suggested I send a message to Jim as he had been speaking to him about our Wiki, so I don't consider anything I have been doing to be spam, as it is relevant to the people concerned.

So I don't think its fair to say I am spamming things all over the place. Anyway, point taken, I will try to be more discrete in future, its just that so much stuff does get spammed onto Jims page that you need something big to make an impact. Thanks for the advice. Mostly Zen 23:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the argument it is relevant to the people concerned is used to spam millions of people, promoting something on less than a half dozen pages is not spam. Spam says "Spamming is the abuse of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited, bulk messages." "Relevent" is no part of the definition, except in as much as it informs the use of the word "abuse". It's more about repetition (quantity) than anything else. When the intent is to place something as many places as one can get away with that is spamming. You can tell what spam is from the source of the term Spam (Monty Python):

Morning.Waitress

Morning.

What have you got, then?

Well there's egg and bacon; egg, sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg, bacon and spam; egg, bacon, sausage and spam; spam, bacon, sausage and spam; spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam; spam, spam, spam, egg and spam; spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, spam, spam and spam; or lobster thermidor aux crevettes with a mornay sauce garnished with truffle pâté, brandy and a fried egg on top and spam.

Have you got anything without spam in it?

Well there's spam, egg, sausage and spam. That's not got much spam in it.

I don't want any spam.

Why can't she have egg, bacon, spam and sausage?

That's got spam in it!

Not as much as spam, egg, sausage and spam.

Look, could I have egg, bacon, spam and sausage without the spam.

Uuuuuuggggh!

What d'you mean uuugggh! I don't like spam.

Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam ... spam, spam, spam, spam ... lovely spam, wonderful spam ...

source

re Talk:Climbing[edit]

So the way things work around here is that admins can ask a volunteer a question on a talk page and then cite them for violating site policies for declining to document an assertion that was made in a talk page (not an article) in response of a direct request from an admin. An assertion that I had already declined to make in the article itself. Somehow he thinks that I am obligated to find someone else that says the same thing that I told him in order to support an assertion that he wants to add to the article. That doesn't make sense to me. Thinredline 18:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is not how things are supposed to work around here. Feel free to help out in whatever way you wish. You are under no obligation to help out in ways others wish you to. While there are things you can be blocked for (three reverts in 24 hours, making threats, being on asshole) you show zero sign of any such thing - so go about your business and help us make this a great encyclopedia in whatever way you can. But do not insult others. They, like you, are trying to help - even if you don't understand how that can be. Thanks. WAS 4.250 22:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, W4, for your participation in Climbing. You're doing a great job, and it's appreciated. Cheers, -Will Beback 06:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

revert[edit]

Do me a favour, do a little research before making knee-jerk reverts for "incivility". The first two comments were parodies of things Aubrey himself has hurled at others. Thanks. Jim62sch 00:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planning reports[edit]

Howdy. About the last revert to the transmission article... The reports I refered to weren't training exercises. They were government reports that were trying to get a handle on how many people would be affected and how many would die in a pandemic. I could insert a direct quote to that effect, from a qualified expert, from one of the articles I quoted. I could aos provide another few references if you like. Could we put back the para, please? Waitak 00:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read the sources you provided and try to put relevant data where I can. Then, in standard wiki-fashion, you can edit my edit and so forth. We get along. I'm sure we will end up with something that works for us both. I'll put a message on your talk page in a few hours when I've done what I can. WAS 4.250 13:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'm heading to bed soon, and am not free again until tomorrow night, so I won't be responding right away. Main point: Officials are consistently using projected mortality rates in their planning that are much lower than anything seen so far. I think that a well-sourced statement to that effect has a legitimate place in the article. I tried to stop short of any judgment on whether that's reasonable or not. Hopefully I succeeded. If you have any better sources, feel free... Thanks for the reply. Waitak 14:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason low numbers are used for planning is that there is a finite amount of money and there are other needs for that money other than pandemic preparedness, so how much is spent on pandemic preparedness is more affected by those other needs than an accurate assessment of an H5N1 pandemic (the only accurate assessment is WE DON'T KNOW). For example, researchers in India claim that the medical needs of the human population in India for existing curable illness is so great that a rational assessment of needs means that all medical money should be spent on those and none on possible but as yet nonexisting emergencies. They say the only reason any money is spent by the Indian government on H5N1 pandemic preparation is to save face in the international community. WAS 4.250 14:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, bro, over to you. Waitak 13:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sold, to the guy from Jersey. Nice working with you, as always. I wish the comment from researchers in India could go into the article somewhere... Could you find a place for it? Waitak 14:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to improve Bird flu in India. WAS 4.250 14:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Spanish flu research[edit]

Template:Spanish flu research has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs[edit]

Hey you! Long time no write! Hope you remember me from the Dinosaur article. Anyway, I remember you knew a thing or two about dinos, so I officially invite you to come & visit the project, which now has a collaboration going. Have a good one... Spawn Man 04:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you took a wiki-vacation from 21 March 2006 to 10 May 2006 [10]. Would you like to talk about it or forget it? WAS 4.250 17:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Investigation huh? Ah, it was just a small wikibreak. It actually played out well, one of my subpages was being deleted, so I said I was taking a wikibreak. Turns out I enjoyed myself & played internet games! When I came back people thought it must have been a tough time being away, but it was actually quite nice... Anyway, that was all. Don't forget to drop by my talk sometime soon... Spawn Man 05:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad that it all worked out. I'll be sure to drop by your talk page again. WAS 4.250 16:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colon (punctuation)[edit]

I've reverted your edits to Colon (punctuation) concerning the use of the colon in a wiki; please see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Since such colon uses have little purpose outside of a wiki, it's considered a self-reference. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colson[edit]

So I'm curious... Why did you delete the Wilberforce Forum factoid from the Colson article? Not that it's a big deal to me. Funny that Coolasclyde is so upset about, particularly since it undermined his argument. FeloniousMonk 04:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight. WAS 4.250 12:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How so? I don't get it. FeloniousMonk 14:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the edits I made to the Colson article were with undue weight in mind. The first edit was mistaken as at the time I didn't realize he founded Wilberforce and it was only the description of Wilberforce that was providing undue weight. For proper weight I copied the into from the Wilberforce article. The second paragraph deleted was unsourced as well as undue weight (I question its relevance at all actually, but a source might provide that). WAS 4.250 15:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glaxo[edit]

I think that you're being too harsh on the additions re the Glaxo vaccine. It made the front page of CNN, and probably deserves a mention in these articles. IMHO, if you're going to call it a publicity stunt and nothing but an attempt to get a government grant, you need to back that up with references. The submitter backed up his/her contributions with references, after all... --Waitak 04:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The references they supplied support the statements I made in my edit summaries and did not support the changes made to the articles. WAS 4.250 17:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10:41, 26 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Transmission and infection of H5N1 (revert undue weight given to publicity stunt. This is a ploy get government contracts. No scientific data was released.) (top)
10:37, 26 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Flu research (revert undue weight being given to a publicity stunt) (top)
10:17, 26 July 2006 (hist) (diff) H5N1 (revert. this is nothing new. clinical trials are still ongoing. and even when trials are over it is uncertain if they will work against a virus THAT DOESN'T EXIST YET) WAS 4.250 17:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the editor's talk page User talk:Rnt20 I said:

Thanks for desiring to help out at the H5N1 suite of articles. You might be intereted in H5N1 clinical trials. Vaccination corporations can not be expected to tell the unbiased truth. They are trying to make money. WHO, CIDRAP, CDC are examples of unbiased sources. No one knows what mutations will occur that could create a pandemic strain, so no pandemic vaccine can be known to be effective until AFTER one or more pandemic strains evolves. H5N1 and H2N3 genes could mix creating both a pandemic H5N1 strain and a H2N3 pandemic strain. My point here is no matter what a company spokesman says, until there exists a pandemic strain it is unknowable what if anything any of our vaccines will do against it. WAS 4.250 14:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC) - - WAS 4.250 17:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. The response that you made to the talk page was much more gracious, and addresses the concern I had. I was mostly concerned that the editor would be discouraged by a summary reversion, and just go away. That's clearly not what you're after. But I was just going by the comments on the reversions, which looked a lot harsher than you may have meant them to come across as. Would it be possible for you to give the editor a suggestion for how to modify his contribution so that it would address the concerns you raised? Or was that the thought behind pointing him at H5N1 clinical trials? --Waitak 06:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, H5N1 clinical trials could be improved with details of Glaxo's H5N1 clinical trials. WAS 4.250 08:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links to wilsoncenter.org[edit]

I have responded to your comments regarding external links to wilsoncenter.org on my talk page. Thanks. -- Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 22:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have again responded to your recent comments on my talk page. Thanks. -- Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 23:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Shapiro[edit]

If you would ever like to reintroduce your edited and properly supported version of Jim Shapiro up on deletion review, I'd be up for it. It seems like before that could be done, we'd need to address some of the concerns. Specifically, questions have been raised about whether Overlawyered is a valid source. I'm not familiar with Overlawyered one way or another, but after a quick Google session, I cannot find any refrence to the Christopher Wagner by name outside of Overlawyered or references thereof, though the other articles do reference the hammer getting "hammered". --Bletch 23:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relax. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We are not a newspaper. We'll get it right eventually. In the short run, being careful is useful. In the long run, creating the best encyclopedia we can will prevail. WAS 4.250 00:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DAY CALENDAR Friday, September 8, 2006 - 10:00 AM COURTROOM 1 Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Robert J. Lunn, J.), entered June 24, 2005. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the cross motion of defendants James J. Shapiro, James J. Shapiro, P.A., and Marcia G. Shapiro, as fiduciary for the Estate of Sidney S. Shapiro (Shapiro Estate), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Shapiro Estate. WAS 4.250 02:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cough[edit]

*cough* [11]. There's an Ottawa Citizen article if you look harder (I remember it from the mid-90s). -- Samir धर्म 04:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there are a dozen sources that I've run across and not included in my rewrite as they don't add much to what is already there. Someone else saying he is famous for the weird ads is useable while listing a dozen blogs and making that conclusion myself is original research. Further, it is important to be encyclopedic and not just razz on the guy "oh look how ironic Mr. I'm an SOB proves he is." The upcoming (in september) court date means activity between now and then on wikipedia could attract unwelcome (for him) attention. We shouldn't let that affect our activities too much, but I can see people who hate him wanting to generate that publicity while our policy is clear that we must be sensitive. I have no idea how it'll play out in practice, but with regard to this; we must do our best to be all about making this a great encyclopedia and not being all about social justice (and that cuts both ways). I wonder if newspapers are going to cover the september court date? Maybe if they don't that proves he isn't noteable enough for wikipedia? I don't know. WAS 4.250 07:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: bird flu[edit]

I personally have no idea. My social studies teacher just told us to research avian influenza, aka bird flu. ~Sushi 08:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask her to clarify, but sometimes they think you are being "too smart" when you make them feel ignorant. But the best teachers love bright and informed students. I wish you the best and will be happy to answer any questions you might have about bird flu or H5N1. WAS 4.250 19:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shapiro referencing[edit]

Can you please provide tighter referencing (i.e. put the reference directly after the word illegal - I realise this is not MOS), or else give the exact reference(s) on article talk page, as this is a sensitive issue? At the moment with 5 refs all in a row, it's not possible to tell which one refers to which point, unless the whole of that section is referenced by all of those equally. Thanks. Tyrenius 05:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. WAS 4.250 07:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Influenza[edit]

I just saw your revert of organizational changes I made to influenza. I understand your sentiment, but disagree. When an article requires an overhaul, it should be done boldly, as the Wikipedia Wikipedia:Be_bold guidelines state. There is no way to reorganize an article without making an apparently large number of changes. I'll redo my work, which is unfortunately going to be a hassle to incorporate all of the subsequent additions. Please don't revert it again unless you have substantive disagreements with the changes. Wipfeln 19:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out destructive behavior[edit]

Please pay attention: After my request that you respect my work on Influenza, you defied the request a second time and quickly reverted. I would like you to know that: 1) this is discouraging further productive work on wikipedia. 2) Wikipedia articles often require copy editing. My edits were quite good, constructive, and took considerable time to put together. The influenza article is worse for your actions. 3) Your patronizing, facetious comments on the history and discussion pages are not appreciated. Please try to maintain courtesy when you disagree, since, as in this instance, you are sometimes in the wrong. Wipfeln 18:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thankyou for your kind encouragement. I really appreciate it, especially after all the hard work you have put into the article. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second Sarah Ewart and award you a barnstar! Tyrenius 09:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your hard work and selfless attitude regarding Jim Shapiro Tyrenius 09:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyWikiBiz[edit]

Is there an official policy on this sort of activity? I know I ran into a similar situation in AFD a few weeks back. When looking at an author's contribs there were five sets of articles, each set clearly a set of interlocked ads, and the author had no other contribs. The subjects were unrelated to each other, so it certainly looked like a paid wikiauthor. Once the pattern was obvious, each set was AFD'ed and deleted. I was just wondering if there's a policy, or should we approach each article just like any other one, regardless of suspicions (or logical conclusions) about the author. Fan-1967 02:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#Robert_Steele.
Wikipedia:Autobiography says "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest."
The key policy being broken is WP:NPOV.
The key policy that you could break in this situation is WP:AGF.
Discussing with others rather than engaging in revert wars is the key to both apparently and actually conflicting rules. WAS 4.250 03:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest created by User:Eloquence 10 August 2006 in this regard. WAS 4.250 21:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honored! :)[edit]

My dear Was, all I can tell you is, I am sincerely suprised and moved that you have asked me to collaborate in your great idea. I'll be most happy to study it in detail and add my modest input as soon as I possibly can, I promise :) I hope you're doing fine, and it's great to talk to you at last! :) Hugs, Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 03:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You![edit]

Thanks so much!

SwedishConqueror 17:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)SwedishConqueror[reply]

MyWikiBiz discussion[edit]

Please join the new discussion at: "Paid to edit" dialogue -- MyWikiBiz 05:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much[edit]

Thank you! That is so nice of you, and it came at a time when it was much-needed. It has made my day. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for August 14th[edit]


Volume 2, Issue 33	14 August 2006	About the Signpost

Editing for hire leads to intervention	Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages
Report from the Chinese Wikipedia	News and notes
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS 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 06:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates[edit]

Thanks for the message. I was thinking about the yearly pattern, in fact. It looks very much like there's a more or less sinusoidal pattern, imposed on top of a classic exponential curve. I'd love to do that analysis and include it in the graph, but that's definitely a violation of WP:NOR. On the one hand, I hate to not put such an analysis in, just because I'm the one who did it, but on the other, the policy is clear, and I don't want to violate it. What to do? Waitak 06:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First round done. Thoughts? Waitak 13:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish that cite.php allowed us to use <ref> in a template. The notes are a good idea, but they do make the template significantly longer. That makes fitting in the float a little more challenging. Not sure what the solution is.

I've added in the 2004 flu season. As for the coming flu season, I've been tempted to extend the graph past the present, using just the regression curve, but that'd be a bit naughty. Only a bit, though. If every country handled it like Vietnam does, the cases could go through the floor. If it mutates into a human-transmissible strain, all bets are off. Might be useful, though, to see what might happen if it sticks to the present course. Waitak 01:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we are on the same page, anyway. I think telling people that barring some new development (such as a vaccine) that we can expect a resurgence this winter is important. I don't know to what extent I believe the numbers third world countries like Vietnam give out. China lies; Vietnam I think tells the truth; but neither have the resources to actually do proper scientific surveilence in the first place. Indonesia even less so and Africa less than that. I have a feeling that the scientific cry for additional surveillence money is just a drop in the bucket for what would be really needed to adequately track Influenzavirus A. It's 1492 and we have just discovered a whole new genetic space Influenzavirus A can occupy. (WAS 4.250 - not signed in) 4.250.168.127 04:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing[edit]

Thanks for reminding me of the Conflicts of interest discussion. You seem to have a particular slant on Kohs' actions, which is fine, but it's not one that I can adopt in the article. One could just as well commend him for addressing the issue directly to the community as condemn him for seeming to back out of a deal made with Jimbo alone (he hasn't yet acted inconsistently with the deal that I can tell). That's why I simply pointed people to the discussion without editorializing about whether his conduct is appropriate. Keep in mind that he's probably not interested in setting site policy (and the Conflicts of interest page is certainly not yet policy in any case), he's trying to decide what his personal course of action will be. --Michael Snow 16:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of paid editing, thank you for your appreciation of my thoughts, it made me smile. Lots! LinaMishima 21:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to mention that when Jimbo and I hung up the phone, the understanding was that the "compromise" he proposed was intended as the "beginning of a dialogue". I hope I'm not mistaken, but I felt that what we "agreed" to was a "deal" to come to some resolution that would work for him, for me, and for everyone after us. The basis to begin that discussion was the "Option 4" on my Talk page. In all of this, WAS has been opposed to what I'm doing (I think), but I respect that. Wikipedia is a great entity, made great by dedicated people like WAS. I honestly think, though, that being TOO principled on this issue of "Conflicts of Interest" can lead to a naivety that doesn't serve the community either. -- MyWikiBiz 02:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re [12][edit]

The concern that I have about Bullet cluster is that the article is comprised almost entirely of a quotation from a copyrighted source. Essentially, the quotation is not being used for the purpose of commentary in the context of the article (which would be fair use) -- the quotation is the article (which is not fair use). Please note that while I do not intend to personally remove the suspected infringing text from Bullet cluster again, I have listed the article on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 August 15/Articles. Administrators who review this listing may delete the article, or delete and recreate it as a stub without the infringing text. You are welcome to comment on your fair use claim for this quotation below the listing for Bullet cluster on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 August 15/Articles. However, please do not remove the listing for this article. John254 23:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for August 21st[edit]


Volume 2, Issue 34	21 August 2006	About the Signpost

Politician's staff criticizes Wikipedia after being caught editing it	Board of Trustees elections continue with call for candidates
Report from the Swedish Wikipedia	News and notes
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS 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 04:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for the support on Daniel's talk page, and taking an "outsider's" view of that article. --JohnDBuell 02:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries[edit]

Just seen Coral Smith. You can set your preferences to remind you to leave edit summaries. :) Tyrenius 14:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. A simple recourse would be to leave an edit summary "see talk" and then you would be able to put your points in a way that satisfies you on the talk page. This would be more considerate of other editors and also give your own edits more credibility. Of course, edit summaries are not mandatory, but they are preferable (or a suitable alternative such as I have suggested). Tyrenius 23:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. I can assure you I am not jousting or point scoring. I am being perfectly serious in pointing something out, and I hope not being too heavy about it, as that is not my intention, nor is it related to any prior involvement, although that is obviously what drew it to my attention. I think it would help other users and may give them an angle which might not otherwise have occurred to them and which they might miss, but I'm quite happy to let it rest, now I've made my observations! Tyrenius 01:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and you are of course free to address this particular aspect in the way that suits you. Happy editing! :) Tyrenius 02:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :-)[edit]

Thanks for your input on Entropia Universe :-) This annon chap has started to actually discuss things on the talk page now - and hopefully the atmosphere of the entire thing will change for the better. Just wanted to let you know how thankful I am for being part of the catalyst for it. AvanniaRayzor 20:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

revert at Spanish flu[edit]

You reverted my edits at Spanish flu with no explanation. I'd like one, and there's a spot to talk at the bottom of its talk page. Thanks. Fresheneesz 13:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By George, you are right! A nice expandable space just waiting for me to fill it with the explanation you deserve. I'll get right on it. I beg you to please forgive my heretofore lack of communication. WAS 4.250 21:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant I made a header. You don't give a very good impression of yourself. Fresheneesz 13:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I live in breathless anticipation from one moment to the next waiting to see what impression I make on you. WAS 4.250 14:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually trying to put rather nicely "you sound like an asshole". I'm disappointed that obviously helpful admins like you have such a bad attitude. Fresheneesz 05:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin. I don't want to be an admin. As a matter of fact, I keep looking for something else for a hobby; but I'm an old retired guy, and this seems to be the best I can do at the moment. WAS 4.250 05:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

For defending User:Publicgirluk. I fear that she may be chased off, she has been a valid contributor to several articles. HighInBC 22:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for August 28th[edit]


Volume 2, Issue 35	28 August 2006	About the Signpost

A note from the editor
Interviews with Board of Trustees candidates	Wikimedia Foundation CFO resigns
Wikimania recap	Report from the Spanish Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS 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 06:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again[edit]

Thanks again for your terrific contributions to the influenza vaccine article. I feel reading it now that I know so much more about the vaccine than I did when I first read the article. Every question I had about the vaccine's history is now answered. Great work. Quadzilla99 13:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More thanks[edit]

Thank you for cleaning up after me. I've no idea what went wrong. By the way, you have an impressive collection of thank-you notes here, so you must be doing great work. I like your "less open/more open" remark at the top. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit[edit]

Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP requires a higher wikipedia standard since the Siegenthaler Controversy in December 2005. Articles like these involve WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV It has been 6 months, and wikipedia still has hundreds of potentially libelious articles.

Many editors and even administrators are generally unaware of potential defamation either direct or via WP:NPOV. To help protect wikipedia, I feel a large working group of historians, lawyers, journalists, administrators and everyday editors is needed to rapidly enforce policies.

I would like to invite you to join and particpate in a new working group, tenatively named Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit, a group devoted to WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV and active enforcement. From your experience and/or writings on talk pages, I look forward to seeing you there. Electrawn 16:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOR[edit]

You know, you and I do not always agree but I think we handle our disagreements in a civil way and what is more important it is always evident to me that you are tying to be constructive. Thanks to your participation I thought we were making progress in revising one paragraph of the policy into one that more people liked more.

The John Awbrey added this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Son_Of_Suggestion Do you see in this the constructive spirit of engagement that I see in your comments? I don´t. On the contrary it seems only to disrupt or undermine the progress we were making, thanks to you and GTBacchus.

Am I off base? Am I out of line? Or is Awbery? Perhaps you can comment on his suggestion. Thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 03:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see in this the constructive spirit of engagement that I see in your comments? I don´t. I don't see a constructive spirit of engagement either. I tried hard to engage him with a friendly fresh start, but he seems to want to exit wikipedia with a bang.
On the contrary it seems only to disrupt or undermine the progress we were making, thanks to you and GTBacchus. His contribution seems to me more like irrelevant talking to himself but "trolling" is being used these days as a catch-all for behavior warrenting a block or ban, and he seems intent on seeing just how far he can push. I was hoping a little kindness and friendliness would help him see Wikipedia as a place he would want to continue being a part of. I guess I was wrong.
Am I off base? Not in the slightest.
Am I out of line? Not even a little bit. Even your insult about "out the ass" can be seen as an attempt to play bad cop to my good cop.
Or is Awbery? Yes, he is way out of line and appears to be asking to be banned. He doesn't seem interested in helping anymore. It's a damn shame. I do so love logic and he helped a great deal with writing about an overlooked part of its history. WAS 4.250 07:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		The Original Barnstar
		For accurately and thoroughly explicating, during the Publicgirluk photo debate and thereafter, the laws of the United States with respect, inter al., to copyright and obscenity, and for undertaking such explication toward the furtherance of encyclopedic principles and with abiding patience and exceeding cordiality, especially in view of the frequency with which United States law was misstated during the debate, Dragons flight and WAS 4.250 are to be commended. Joe 05:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you and DF each contributed importantly, though in the context of different specific issues, to the PG discussion with respect to legal principles, I thought it only fair that each of you receive a similarly-styled barnstar. Joe 05:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your assumption of bad faith[edit]

this. I was not trolling and I believe everyone else was sincere in what they said therefore no one was trolling. I believe you committed vandalism. I urge you to put it back. Anomo 00:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore my question to Jimbo. If you believe it contains "lies and distortions," I will amend any distortion and/or lie and edit my post. I do not believe I have distorted anything, nor have I lied. I am even willing to edit my post in case I have made a mistake which distorts the issue. I cannot edit my post to remove the "lies and distortions" unless you tell me what your problem is. My post is clearly so offensive to you that you believe my question must be censored from view. If the "lies and distortions" are so serious surely you can immediately substantiate the reasons for your censorhip and point out the distortions and lies in my post. If you don't do that, I'm going to post it again. And I'm just going to post the same thing again since I already reworded it once, with no direction from you, based on your complaint. That's the best I could do and I can't read your mind. -unsigned by 24.36.243.50

Feeding trolls is worse than a waste of time, it actively encourages them to continue to disrupt. However, as I often make mistakes, let us assume my responding to you here is worthwhile. In that case, please enter below whatever text that "I will amend any distortion and/or lie and edit my post" applies to and I will edit that text in order to " tell [you] what [the] problem is". Then we can discuss further or you can act on that communication in a way you think is helpful. Distorting my motives and calling thoughts (pedaphilia) behavior (abuse) is trolling. Wanting to get rich is not stealing. Finding 17 year olds attractive is not rape. Deleting misleading quotes from Wikipedia Review is not deleting because something needs to be censored. WAS 4.250 02:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me what part of what I said contains the lies and distortion, I can't read your mind. Here's the page before you erased my post [13]. You post the text here and point out what you think are my lies and distortions. If I agree I've misrepresented something or lied, then I'll change it. As for your lecturing, I don't appreciate it, and I don't need to hear it. And before you contemptuously lecture me again, I am well aware that "Finding 17 year olds attractive is not rape," I didn't intend to "call thoughts behavior." As for distorting your motives, I'm not sure where I did that, but you can point that out when you point out the other lies and distortions and I'll be happy to fix what needs fixing. You can use the DSM criteria for defining pedophilia [14], since that seems to be one of your main concerns. That way we'll both be on the same page. -by 24.36.243.50

Risk Photos[edit]

The consensus reached in Talk:Masturbation through discussion seems to have been totally useless since anonymous users as well as user Future either insert images never discussed or delete what has been restored, notably Image:Masturbation techniques.jpg. The image itself has been deleted altogether from the data base by user JoshuaZ with the consequence that it is no longer visible in Talk:Masturbation and that the whole section of discussing the "New Image" there at Talk:Masturbation#The_New_Image has become utterly pointless. This is vandalism in a most irritating way. In the meantime, I have deleted all images in the controversial first section on the Masturbation page. If we don't have a policy for risk photos at this time, all pictures in Talk:Masturbation should be deleted for now. CarlosLuis 2:25, 6 September 2006.

Signpost updated for September 5th.[edit]


Volume 2, Issue 36	5 September 2006	About the Signpost

Everyking desysopped	Explicit images spark debate
Report from the Italian Wikipedia	The English Wikipedia reaches 1,000 administrators
Voting begins in Board elections	Wikipedia in the news
News and notes	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and International Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS 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 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for September 11th.[edit]


Volume 2, Issue 37	11 September 2006	About the Signpost

Carnildo resysopped	Report from the Hungarian Wikipedia
News and notes	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and International Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS 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 05:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:WP:BLP[edit]

Really - Daniel Brandt inspired WP:BLP? I had thought it was inspired by the John Siegenthaler incident. Regards, EFG 01:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy gets more press play and more notice here at Wikipedia than the Daniel Brandt problems. But Daniel played a role in the former: He looked up the IP address in Seigenthaler's article, and found that it related to "Rush Delivery", a company in Nashville. He contacted Seigenthaler and the media, and posted this information on his Wikipedia Watch website. So the two are related. But BLP got its start when I read the back and forth between Daniel and Wikipedians on some talk page in December of 2005 (perhaps the talk page of the article on him, but I no longer remember exactly) and one of Daniel's comments was that living people deserve a special sensitivity. That immediately struck me an undenyable both true and important so I created a guideline/policy proposal (I thought it made a better guideline than a policy myself) with a single sentence saying exactly that and links to relevant policies and guidelines. Then I notified User talk:Daniel Brandt and User talk:SlimVirgin (the two key people involved with the debate on the article Daniel Brandt). Here is the edit where I notified Daniel (14:53, 17 December 2005): "Due to all this, I just now created Wikipedia:Biographies on living persons deserve a special sensitivity as a proposed guideline. If its a good idea, people (like you) can fill it out. WAS 4.250 18:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)". SlimVirgin fleshed it out. It was renamed and other people joined in and improved it further. It became a guideline. Jimbo asked on the mailing list why it wasn't a policy and what would it take to become one. So more modififications were made and it became a policy. People are still tweaking it for better or worse. So Daniel inspired it, I started it, SlimVirgin is mostly responsible for writing it, and its a policy because Jimbo wanted it to be a policy. WAS 4.250 09:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extensive response. What I don't understand though, is why theres such a focus on living people, rather than just people. For example, I remember the page on Steve Irwin suffered from a huge amount of vandalism after he died, a lot of it highly offensive and inaccurate. I wish Wikipedia simply required everything to be cited! Then there would be no question about it's reliability. 4.249.9.98 20:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's mainly because living people are more likely to sue wikipedia, and any libel would be far more harmful. That said, you're right in suggesting that BLP be extended to the reciently decessed, too. Technically we do require that everything be cited, it just varies on how heavily it's enforced. Remember that WP:VERIFY allows the immediate removal of any unreferenced material. LinaMishima 20:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it were just about legal liability, then our Libel policy would be sufficient. The BPL policy is more about morality (as in why are we doing donating money and time to Wikipedia in the first place?). As for why living people rather than all people; that is simply a matter of priority. You can't make everything a priority by definition! Wikipedia is changing. The initial problem was getting anybody to contribute anything. Most non-European language Wikipedia's are still in that position. We are now in the process of evolving to be fully cited. That will take a while. Providing certified versions of some specific articles that can be trusted as free from vandalism and checked for accuracy is being tested in the German Wikipedia and will be implemented here within a year in some form. Over years the number of articles with a fully trustable version (which is what unsigned in users will see as the article) will rise until we have a full encyclopedia worth of better than Britannica articles. Most commentators talk about Wikipedia as if what it is is what it will always be; which is like looking at a tall three year old and thinking he's too short to play basketball. WAS 4.250 04:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO you've got some really good insight into BLP matters. Keep up the good work, and illegitimi non carborundum. Lou Sander 00:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sound of the second shoe dropping[edit]

Originally the sub-sub-sections under Philosophical issues in Existence of God contained a breezy title with a more technical title in parenthesis; to wit : (1) What is God? (Definition of God's existence) and (2) How do we know? (Epistemology). WAS 4.250 16:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you don't like my edit? Or are you just giving me an interesting piece of information? I simply felt that the question in the title was somewhat un-encyclopedic. Dave Runger^(t)⁄_(c) 16:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am "just giving [you] an interesting piece of information", perhaps useful in evaluating options for titles of subheadings, perhaps not. I am very sorry that I was cryptic. It is one of my many failings. WAS 4.250 19:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for September 18th.[edit]


Volume 2, Issue 38	18 September 2006	About the Signpost

"Citizendium" project aims to rival Wikipedia	Report from the Simple English Wikipedia
News and notes	In the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and International Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS 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 05:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for September 25th.[edit]


Volume 2, Issue 39	25 September 2006	About the Signpost

Erik Möller declared winner in Board of Trustees election	Wikimania 2007 to be held in Taipei
Arbitration clerk Tony Sidaway resigns	Report from the Dutch Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS 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 08:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring[edit]

I like it! How about leaving the most current updates (all of 2006?) in the main article? Treat the other articles as archives? Waitak 02:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand anything you just said. How about starting with answering "why?". Then from your answer to that maybe I can make heads or tails out of the "what" part. Global spread of H5N1 in 2006 is part of Global spread of H5N1 which is part of H5N1 which is part of Influenzavirus A which is the major causitive agent of Flu so Flu is sort of the "main article" ... WAS 4.250 03:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, once more, with feeling. I'd suggest that we remerge the contents of Global spread of H5N1 in 2006 into Global spread of H5N1, while leaving the other sub-pages as is. The motivation is: people who want to know what's happening with H5N1 shouldn't have to go to Global spread of H5N1 and then to Global spread of H5N1 in 2006 in order to find out. On the other hand, if people would like to look at what's happened in the past, it's very reasonable to have to go to a sub-page to find out. Hope that's clearer. Waitak 05:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Global spread of H5N1 should contain a summary of Global spread of H5N1 in 2006 just like H5N1 has a summary of Global spread of H5N1. I have an idea. How about making Global spread of H5N1 in 2006 easier to find by putting it on the H5N1 template? I'll also see if I can make the 2004 and 2005 more visible in see also sections. WAS 4.250 08:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. I reformatted the template just a little. Feel free to change it further (or back) if you don't like it. Waitak 11:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love your change to the template. I just now looked at it and the words "oo, perfect" involuntarily fell off my lips. WAS 4.250 16:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! :-) Waitak 06:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lecturing[edit]

Oh, stop being a prat. Rebecca 01:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to:

"Fucking" is by definition profanity, which is included in the policy Wikipedia:Civility as a serious example of breaking that policy. According to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing: "Obvious cranks and aggressively disruptive editors may be blocked or banned after a consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians agrees that their edits constitute persistent violations of fundamental policies" so persistent use of such profanity that causes other editors to be distressed can result in being banned without the use of the formalism of arbcom. The point of the Wikipedia:Civility policy is because uncivil behavior is bad for wikipedia. Disrupting wikipedia by persistent profanity even after being warned can be expected to result in being blocked and eventually banned if the conduct does not improve. This message is going to Bobblewik and Rebecca. WAS 4.250 00:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is not encouraging. WAS 4.250 03:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for October 2nd.[edit]


Volume 2, Issue 40	2 October 2006	About the Signpost

New speedy deletion criteria added	News and notes
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS 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 06:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Flu[edit]

Thanks for the request to edit this section. I will take a look at the suggested paragraphs in the next few days. Apparent Logic 13:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OSINT[edit]

Please accept the apologies of the Washington OSINT community for the threats made regarding any inclusion of OSINT without the reference to Mr. Robert Steele, or whatever he likes to be called today. Everyone, from the Director to the student has weathered these personal outbursts, and soon learns the facts. Good entertainment! User talk:ComLinks

Thanks, Alan. But I'd just as soon be left out of your conflict with Bob. I'm here to promote knowledge in general, not sell a solution. By the way, I wikified your post. I hope you don't mind. The Wikipedia article OSINT needs a lot of help, but any attempt to use it for private gain will be reverted. If you need advice in this regard I can direct you to relevant pages in wikipedia. Good luck with your career and with helping Wikipedia - just keep the two seperate. WAS 4.250 18:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo[edit]

Jimbo has restored that text once himself already. [15] Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo restored that message himself, so he obviously wants it on his talk page for whatever reason. I think you should respect that. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Milloy[edit]

Have you read the references provided ? If WP:Living means anything, it must mean that statements must be verifiable, and meet WP:RS. Someone's opinion that a reference validates a statement means nothing, if they are prepared to conflate payment to a person with payment to an organisation; budget, and payment; and one company, with a totally different company.

I am also rather amused that you say I am pushing a POV; I have asked for statements to be verifiable, justified by the references and meet WP:RS. Is that POV ? Peroxisome 19:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus determines if WP:Living is met or not. WAS 4.250 04:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that is a fascinating perspective, but at least I can see the basis you are operating on. It is your wikipedia.Peroxisome 08:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Flu[edit]

Hi there. Since you erased it, I wonder what it is that you don't find ok in the "despite not having originated there nor having hit particularly this country, the Allies...". Since its name is actually misleading I think that a warning in the beginning of the article is necessary. Yes, it is implied in the rest of the article that it didn't come from Spain, however, a straight reference to this in the beginning shouldn't bother anyone, no? Thanks. Mountolive 06:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The latest data I've seen indicated it is unknown where it came from with the US and France being the two major guesses and Asia ruled out as the source. The article needs to be rewritten using up to date sources since so much that was believed about it has been proven incorrect in just the last few years. Any additions to the article should use a source that is clearly up to date on the latest flu research. In no case should an addition be made with no source at all. WAS 4.250 06:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, but, still, Spain is not suspected by any of those to-be-proven theories to have been the birth place of the epidemics (and is almost final that it didn't originated there) while, still, its name is definitely misleading.

The only thing I am requesting is a straight clear up in the beginning like the one I proposed so that the great bias implicit in its name is removed right away, that's it. Is this ok with you? Mountolive 07:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. No problem. I thought it already was clear. Spain is generally believed to not to be the source of Spanish Flu. The name is due to the fact that Spain didn't have the war time censoring the other powers had, so knowledge of the pandemic was first associated with Spain. As for Spain not being hit all that hard, well, its all relative isn't it? Something like that needs to be sourced. WAS 4.250 07:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right with the need of sourcing the claim of Spain not being particularly hit by this. It wasn't anyway, but I guess these statements are best when sourced. I know it is clear for those who know about this matter that Spain is not believed to be the origin of the epidemics. However, we must think in people who doesn't have any knowledge in the matter as well: those are easily led to think that it came from Spain, after its name. Thus I proceed making this clear in a similar way as before, but without the "not hit particularly hard" part. Thank you for the feedback. Mountolive 07:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A-hem...well, I made some reference to a more proper name as well. I am not particularly proud of this part, so, if you are not comfortable with it, just feel free to reword it or even suppress it. Mountolive 07:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for October 9th.[edit]


Volume 2, Issue 41	9 October 2006	About the Signpost

Interview with Board member Erik Möller	Wall Street Journal associates Wikipedia with Grupthink
Account used to create paid corporate entries shut down	Report from the Portuguese Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line	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 17:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Attribution[edit]

A proposal that NOR and V be combined, and RS ditched. Your views would be most welcome. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refs[edit]

Proud of you, WAS! Waitak 16:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That means a lot to me. Every day, I see you hard at work improving citing. You set a good example. WAS 4.250 16:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Lee Curtis[edit]

Hi, I've removed your comment from the article and put it on the Talk page where I think you meant it to go. Apologies if this was not what was intended. --RicDod 17:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I jumped via link directly to the subsection and thought I was on the talk page. I moved the rest of the section to the talk page where it belongs. WAS 4.250 18:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You edited (removed a portion of) my comments on the Jamie Lee Curtis page. This is not acceptable. I'm happy to discuss any differences of opinion I may have with other editors, but I won't accept other people editing my comments because they disagree. Atom 16:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages." I noticed you used Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as a reason to delete sources in Nikki Craft. I too have a problem with Nikki citing stuff at her own website to source claims on her bio page, but deleting the only listed source and leaving the claim makes no good sense. I also notice almost all your recent edits are sex related. So you want to pick a fight with me over my correct use of WP:BLP while you use it to delete sources instead of claims and your edit subjects are troll bait (but I have not reviewed your edits on those sex pages). Altogether a troubling pattern. WAS 4.250 16:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have responded to your comments on my talk page, Jamie Lee Curtis and Nikki Craft. I am not picking a fight. I was polite but firm in setting limits. Thank you for commenting and discussing the issue. Atom 18:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATT[edit]

WAS, your edits are causing confidence to be lost, and people who disagree are just staying away from the page now, which means consensus is going to be harder to achieve. There is no way that a general weakening of the policy is going to be accepted. Even the pop culture exception will be hard to push through. If you try to change the policies to allow non-professional self-published self-proclaimed experts in all subject areas, then we may as well kill the proposal now. Please try to settle on the compromise position of having an exception for pop culture and throw your weight behind trying to persuade people of that, because there's significant opposition even to that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for October 16th.[edit]


Volume 2, Issue 42	16 October 2006	About the Signpost

Wikipedia partially unblocked in mainland China	$100 million copyright fund stems discussion
Floyd Landis adopts "the Wikipedia defense" as appeal strategy	News and notes: Logo votes begin, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line	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 18:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Influenza page[edit]

Hi there. I've had a look over your comments and tried to change the article in line with some of your suggestions. I quite understand the "revert reflex" since I've become quite attached to articles like Enzyme or Enzyme inhibitor where I've put in a lot of work and mindless vandals seem to attack constantly! Hopefully I'll be able to improve your excellent work on this page without causing any more misunderstandings. All the best TimVickers 18:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'll check it out again tomorrow and comment again then. WAS 4.250 18:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping to bring this page to Featured Article standard and eventually get it through the FA nomination and review process, although this can take a long time! GA is a good first step, and with our combined expertise we should be able to progress quite quickly. Thanks again. TimVickers 23:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard[edit]

Section on Rick Ross.

Thank you for the advice, I hope that will give us all some more direction. We shall see. Yours, Smeelgova 05:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]