User talk:WAS 4.250/Archive 10

An Insight

Wikipedia is about creating a body of knowledge that is bigger than an individual's knowledge. That's is power, that's its strength, that's its spirit, that's its essence.

Some people want to restrict knowledge to not go beyond what they themselves know. Some of those people want to make WP:NOR be more restrictive: that gives them a tool (or tools) to use to restrict knowledge.

As you can see I looked in on WT:NOR and made two posts. I'm still looking. I may again stop looking soon. --66.222.28.8 21:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That was odd

Noted your revert. Makes you wonder about the motivation for that specific deletion. Still, it's raining, too much time on my hands if I am thinking about that! BTW, thought the edits were sound and balanced. Where are the crew? Spenny 07:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, obeying the rules, and not playing ownership games? Hope for the best. WAS 4.250 07:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Debate Camp

Debate Camp!!! WOW! What beautiful work! I just got your message about it this morning. I spent what free time I had yesterday on those crazy Mailing Lists, and never even opened Wikipedia until this morning. There is much I would like to discuss with you about the Camp. I have many substantive ideas about it but, being as computer-challenged as I am, will need help figuring out how to implement them in the Wikipedia medium. Also, could we communicate from now on via email?

THANK YOU!

Michael David 13:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Just data dump your ideas right here on this page (or at Wikipedia talk:Debate camp) and I'll implement and/or talk back. I don't deal with WikiMedia/Wikipedia in any way other than on line editing of WikiMedia wiki-based sites. So no email. It's helpful in maintaining boundaries. The biggest problem you will have with your debate camp idea is to make it seem cool so people will want to participate instead of wanting others to participate. I know computers and wikipedia and you know psychology; so what we need now is someone who can make it cool. Maybe you could talk Jimbo into participating? WAS 4.250 14:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Terrific! I do have some questions about the mechanics of setting up the various parts (sections, pages, whatever you would call them) of the Project, but right now I am trying to recruit some Coaches for the Project. These would be the persons who would monitor the discussions and offer advice. I'm also going to take your advice and try and interest Jimmy Wales in it. We'll see. From now on I will communicate with you on Wikipedia talk:Debate camp. Talk with you again, soon. I'm excited. I hope we're creating a monster ;-) :-).

Michael David 15:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

One thing I forgot to ask, could you place some sort of notice or tag at the top of the Debate Camp main page saying something like "this project is still in development, and not ready for full operation" (or something like that)?

Thanks,

Michael David 17:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Glad to help. It's your idea. Your ball. Run with it and count on me to help with your being "computer-challenged". WAS 4.250 17:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Do be aware that transparency and non-ownership are essential to Wikipedia; so whatever your plans are they have to fit within those constraints. For example, just cuz I put the tag on the page does not mean others can't come along and develop and use the project as they see fit. (So far, no such luck :( ) WAS 4.250 17:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag. As far as my being computer-challenged, my focus has always been on the content not the process - anything more complicated than FileMaker Pro and I'm stuck. Know that I am working on a geriatric Mac. In fact, I bought my very first computers in the early 80s: Two Apple LISAs, which I still have in storage with the original Mac programs still on them. You know LisaWrite, LisaList & LisaCalc. Ah, those were the days :-).

It never occurred to me that someone else might want to come along and develop it. Fine by me, so long as they stick with the original goals. I'll be in touch again, soon.

Be healthy,

Michael David 13:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone hijacks the project in a direction you disagree with (happens all the time at wikipedia) we talk to them and see if we can agree on a middle way or agree on one project with internal subprojects or whether it is best to fork off so there are two seperate projects (Wikipedia:Debate camp and Wikipedia:Fun debate camp). WAS 4.250 14:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've gotten some input about the name "Debate" Camp. I'd like to change it to "Discussion Camp". Would you do this for me on the Project Page - I don't know how.

Thanks, Michael David 13:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

COTA

Thank you for creating the article, but it probably will not have notability and credible sources until the event occurs. On that note, would you like to volunteer or attend COTA? Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 07:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the offer; but regrettably, no, for personal reasons I can't get into. Best of luck to you. WAS 4.250 16:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Account

I replied on my talk page. I believe you are suggesting that "account" is a poor choice of words, and have changed the language to be more precise. -- 67.98.206.2 18:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well done. WAS 4.250 19:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Influenza categories

Hello again, I wonder if you would be interested in reviewing my proposal for new and reorganized categories for the influenza pages. Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 04:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your best wishes. We would love to have you drop by and perhaps even help in our project. If you like, you can access our chatroom from the contact link on our homepage. Danny 17:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that. Thanks for the invite. WAS 4.250 18:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, hovering over "About" at http://www.veropedia.com/ and selecting "Contact" provides your IRC data (http://www.veropedia.com/irc/irc.cgi). WAS 4.250 23:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Human flu

Human flu, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Human flu satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human flu and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Human flu during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —G716 <^T·_C> 02:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If I had realised that Twinkle would add this to your page, I would have been more careful. Please ignore the tone of the message above -- given your extensive contributions to the project, the boilerplate text above seems pretty rude. I apologise and did not mean any offence. I simply mean to ask if the Human flu page adds anything useful to Wikipedia. Best regards—G716 <^T·_C> 02:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Georgi Gladyshev

Hello there.

Given the very grave concerns over User:Sadi Carnot expressed in this ANI thread, I was wondering why you had recreated the Georgi Gladyshev article after it had been deleted by AfD?

I'm sure that recreation was well intended, but it might be useful if you chimed in in the ANI thread I linked above to say so yourself. — Coren ^(talk) 02:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What is your concern with my creating a NPOV properly sourced article? WAS 4.250 03:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadi Carnot (talk · contribs) is probably going to be community banned for a very serious case of spamming and subtle vandalism that spanned two years and many science articles. It was probably just a coincidence that you recreated this article right after his version was deleted. I'm not certain why your version of the article was deleted. I'd like to help clear that up. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No coincidence. I saw the POV misrepresenrations by Sadi and I was curious how he had misrepresented others' work. I picked Gladyshev as a likely candidate and googled him. I found what seemed to me to be a reliable source and decided he seemed importanrt enough that Wikipedia should not be deprived of an article about him just because someone misrepresented his work. WAS 4.250 03:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's also a little bit surprising that you were able to find good sources to write an NPOV article on Dr. Gladyshev. We ended up having to abandon the article when we failed to turn any up during the AfD. I guess it's a shame you didn't notice the AfD earlier. Could you share those sources with me? I'd love to be able to help you rewrite the article— I had myself attempted to do so before the AfD hammer fell on it. — Coren ^(talk) 03:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I used Google. WAS 4.250 03:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good reason indeed, and was also my first reflex (see the AfD itself). Which is why I'd very much like to see those sources. Gladyshev may have fallen into woo-woo now, but he seems to have done serious science before. The problem is that all sources we could find either did not show him to be notable, or looped back to (eandev.org) which cannot be used because it is very strongly associated with Gladyshev himself. I also used Google (and Google scholar), BTW, which is why I am curious. — Coren ^(talk) 03:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing you did not try googling using his middle name. http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=%22Georgi+Pavlovich+Gladyshev%22&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 shows http://www.peoples.ru/science/chemistry/georgy_gladishev/ as its eighth listed link. Clink on Google's "translate this page" limk to get http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.peoples.ru/science/chemistry/georgy_gladishev/&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=8&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522Georgi%2BPavlovich%2BGladyshev%2522%26num%3D30%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dopera%26rls%3Den%26hs%3Dutn which was my source. WAS 4.250 03:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The source appears to have been the same peoples.ru link we found at the AfD. It's not independent, as its text is largely copied from endeav.org. —David Eppstein 03:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about that. WAS 4.250 03:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh. There is nothing to worry about; I was taken in by the same bio myself— on a cursory reading this does very much looks like a respected scientist with lots of awards. For that matter, he may still be, but the veracity of some of the claims in his CV is dubious, and with no better sources to verify the rest of his credentials, we were forced to give up. — Coren ^(talk) 03:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's in Russian, it's at *.ru, the content has nothing to do with the nonsense that the guy in question was trying to "sell", I question whether you are right in questioning its reliability. But I've not investigated at all; this is all first impressions for me. Assuming you've looked into it, thanks for keeping questionable stuff out of wikipedia. WAS 4.250 03:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And thank you for trying to salvage an article that we were forced to delete. Removing contents is, like, the opposite of building an encyclopedia after all.  :-) For your own edification, the source you found is basically a copy of http://www.endeav.org, which is about as official as it gets (it's his CV on the website of the organization he leads). And if you look into the awards he claims, some are unverifiable, some are false or misleading and the others come from vanity award mills where you pay to get a pretty plaque/medal and a fancy title. Nothing to inspire confidence. — Coren ^(talk) 04:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's nice to be a part of group of people as nice as you guys. I enjoyed learning the details of this case that you just provided. Information is fun and nice people that also care about information make the whole encyclopedia building thing that much more special. This is getting too saccharine. Time for me to go to sleep. Over and out. WAS 4.250 04:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hi.

Two notes.

1. When rolling back to previous versions [1] its an idea to ensure you don't inadvertantly remove other useful changes, such as templates (esp. "fact" ones - note they don't claim that the statement is not a fact, just that it requires a source), or changes to references.

2. Please don't rollback to earlier versions that have been changed, and remained changed for sometime, without good reason.

Thanks. Happy editing again.--ZayZayEM 00:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Might point out this part of one of the new sources:

Media reports focus on what might happen if the virus mutates to become freely transmittable to and among humans, and many predict huge numbers of deaths if this happens.

In terms of death statistics so far, human avian influenza is not a huge public health issue. As Brown put it, there are 40 million people living with HIV around the world. More people die of traffic accidents in Vietnam than of avian flu.

But a mix of fear, disaster and the unknown makes avian flu a topic of concern. Other factors add to this -- that avian flu marks the arrival of a new emerging infection has a large impact on the poultry industry, a high mortality rate, and the potential to cross national boundaries.

Media focuses on the negative "what if" scenarios. H5N1 is a deal, but "not a huge public health issue" c.f other prominent ones. It is mostly the combination of fear, and potential scope for disaster that makes it one, as well as it's economic impact on the poultry industry.

I like this Richard Brown guy. Far more sensible then a self proclaimed alarmist like Nabarro.--ZayZayEM 05:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

take a look at what I've done at H5N1#Impact_on_human_society. Prose is always preferrable to a list. Especially when a list takes a strong viewpoint, and skips over other details that may be in the text. Please remember the points I tried to make about how innapropriate this section was User_talk:ZayZayEM#Flu_articles when I first started removing it--ZayZayEM 05:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue with H5N1 has always been what it might become rather than what it currently is. The scary thing about H5N1 is that it is a completely new thing on the face of the Earth in terms of how it behaves. No other entity that science knows of has behaved like it in terms of mutability (it is a flu virus), and virulence (it kills 50 % of humans), and widespread growing endemic presence (this last is the key; until H5N1, no HPAI spread in wild birds; and this virus has continuously increased its ability to infect both new mammal and bird species even up to the present - a new study shows how it is increasing in its ability to kill sparrows).

As for "prose is always preferrable to a list"; while that's true, I'm not that great a writer and I'm really lazy (especially for stuff I'm paid no money to do). WAS 4.250 06:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything is "completely new" at some point [2]. H5N1 isn't even that *new*, its just new as a threat. This whole thing about "scary thing", as well as some basic naivity about science reporting is really interfering with your ability to write in a neutral, informative, encyclopedic tone. Some your stuff I don't disagree with, it just doesn't belong in wikipedia. Try FluWiki. Also consider reading this guideline. Writing about things you are really passionate about is just asking for hurt (paraphrased fropm WP:COI)--ZayZayEM 07:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I was doing science research as a physics undergrad before you were born, young man. You have some basic naivete about your own condescending attitude and how it affects your relationship with others. But you are right that H5N1 as a subtype is not new; just the strain that is currently a pandemic threat is new (less than a handful of years). We even have a date for when we knew we had a bi-i-i-g problem. In October 2004 researchers discovered H5N1 is far more dangerous than previously believed because waterfowl, especially ducks, were directly spreading the highly pathogenic strain of H5N1.[3] From this point on, avian flu experts increasingly refer to containment as a strategy that can delay but not prevent a future avian flu pandemic.[4] I'll take the opinion of the experts over yours any day. But you are right about writing about things one is really passionate about - it is genuinely a cause for self refection. And everyone needs editing. I'm glad you are helping with the flu articles. I just wish you would add as much data as you delete. I always saw my role as adding sourced data that then others would polish/edit. I should not have to write a perfect encyclopedia paragraph for it not to be deleted. All I'm saying is don't delete based on imperfect writing. Remember we are trying to create an encyclopedia of all human knowledge - not just what would fit in 20 volumes. If we have room for a TV episode, we have room for some minor point about a pandemic threat strain - it just needs a source and the right context. Deleting and tagging is child's work; try adding sourced data or polishing existing data to make it read better - now that's a job for an adult. Take your latest change to H5N1 for example. The adding of NPOV was good. The deleting of what we don't know was not helpful in my opinion. WAS 4.250 13:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

jimbo, miltopia, block,. drama, etc.

Just to let you know I changed the wording "poll" to "responses". I realise that you were breaking the text into a more manageable section, but I though "poll" was inaccurate - since it isn't a vote. If you change it back to your original name I will not revert it, and you can indicate that in the summary. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 22:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I was not sure what to call it. The other sections are also "responses" so I choose not to use that term. Another editor refered to "the poll that is over now" so I went with the term "poll". But the point was mainly to move the table of contents up to the top and since I was doing that breaking the text into a more manageable section was a useful side benefit as opposed to forcing the TOC to the top with some wiki-ism I forget at the moment. "TOC|top" or some such thing. WAS 4.250 22:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. As everything that follows are also responses I suppose naming the first as such isn't harmful. My problem with poll is it may give the illusion that "votes" are going to change anything. As I said, if you think your naming is more accurate then please change it back. LessHeard vanU 22:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The term "poll" is questionable for the section. I just could not think of any title that was better. I was hoping someone would improve it. Maybe you did. <humour> Of course the really important thing is for you and me to revert each other on the naming of the section as many times as possible as an object lesson in what not to do. That'll teach 'em ! Create wiki-drama to decrease wiki-drama will they - ha - we'll show them a thing or two ! </humour>WAS 4.250 23:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

<humour>Please learn to spell or I will block you! I am an admin, you know!? (well, at the moment, anyway...)</humour>LessHeard vanU 23:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I would not take the job of admin if they paid me. I'm just glad enough other people are crazy enough to take the job. WAS 4.250 23:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of content

I noted that my earlier, inaccurate, warning to remove comments which do not arise to personal attacks as per WP:NPA has been repeatedly removed by you. This is very likely counterproductive, as at least one individual has referred to that comment as proof against you. It is therefore probably in your own best interests to allow this comment to stay, and probably even to restore that one, as proof that I acknowledged that it was placed in error for anyone else who might see it. John Carter 19:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I note that the above comment was posted more or less simultaneously with a comment indicating that the discussion in which the comment was linked is counted as resolved. On that basis, there is no reason to keep either of these comments here. However, for everyone's sake, I personally think it best if all such comments are allowed to remain on pages. It generally helps ensure that any observers think you aren't the guilty one looking to remove comments. Just a thought, though, and it doesn't apply in this case. The editor in question was looking to have someone support him on a block of you, and linked to my warning as proof. I realize that was in error, and wish to formally state on your userpage history, if nowhere else, that it was a mistake on my part, and that it was actually removed by an admin looking to prevent escalation. For my mistake, I sincerely apologize. John Carter 19:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture

And what a welcome it was! Please take a look at the project page and discussion for ideas on how you can help. Feel free to add ideas of your own or discuss on the Project page, but you know all that. You also know what a feisty group we can be! You can move corn and maize back and forth all day long but don't screw around with our project page! (just kidding, I think that matter is over) I look forward to working with you for the improvement of Agricultural articles across Wikipedia. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

BonziBuddy

Let's talk about this extensively by email. There are issues here that you clearly don't know about.--Jimbo Wales 18:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't use e-mail so I'll refrain from editing on that article or on BonziBuddy claims in other articles. WAS 4.250 19:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

But frankly, if the article can't be written in a way that objectively reflects the sources, then the article should not exist. Your edits misrepresented the sources used for that article and that brings Wikipedia and yourself into disrepute. I corrected your edits to accurately reflect the sources used. We all the time remove sourced data that private information from a trusted source lets us know is inaccurate. We just talked about that on the talk page of WP:NOR. But adding data that is only known true because of unpublished information is unsustainable in an encyclopedia that is based on what everyone can openly verify. If you insist on personally editing that article to include information that the provided reference disagrees with, then what do you think will happen? I can only guess. But I'll be watching from the sidelines, because I will never touch that article again. WAS 4.250 19:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to delete or oversight whatever you wish if its all so very secret. WAS 4.250 19:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You do know that that article is being closely watched by people who wish for utter destruction for both you and Wikipedia, don't you? WAS 4.250 19:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think your edits [5] were fair, accurate and constructive. (Just letting you know I don't hate you, and totally not stalking at all).--ZayZayEM 15:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your edit to the article and comments an the talk page. Above, Jimbo invites me to email him about it, but I don't do email (that started as a preference and has hardened into a rule for a variety of reasons). Perhaps you would like to take him up on his offer. I am guessing that he will say that there is a threat of a lawsuit and he weighed:

1. do we really want to waste money in legal fees right now on the difference between "spy-ware" and "ad-ware" on one article about a retired product? or
2. do we want to delete a trivial article that is mostly true? or
3. do we temporize for now, keeping the article mostly as is until we can get a grant for legal defense against this sort of extortion (legal "extortion" that I am hypothesising)?

There is a good chance it is something else altogether. Maybe Jimbo has just made a mistake with regard to misunderstanding some legal advice he heard and never checked back with the details to the lawyer. Maybe Jimbo is responding to an OTRS ticket without consulting anyone, which would explain the bizarre sticks-out-like-a-thumb editing.

In any case, my main concern is for the reputation of Wikipedia as an unbiased source and Jimbo's edit that misrepresents the sources used in the article is not helpful with regard to that. I'm sure it will all work out in the end, so I'm not worried - curious, yes - worried, no. WAS 4.250 17:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot for the advice. Have a nice day:)--SJP 15:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

Thank you very much for your previous assistance at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. We are still having a bit of a stalemate at the article though, so if you have time, I was wondering if you could offer another opinion? I have created a subpage in my userspace where I have rewritten the article from top to bottom, shrinking it down from 167K to a little less than 70K, removing some of the unreliable sources and less relevant information, splitting other sections out to more appropriate articles, and most importantly, trying to smooth out the writing so as not to give undue weight to certain POVs. My rewritten version of the article is currently at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance. I've announced it at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Article rewrite, but because this is such an obscure subject, it's really been very difficult to prove that there is consensus for the new version. If you have a few minutes, could you please look over the rewrite, and offer an opinion on it? I am very open to making changes, but I'm in a situation where I basically have one editor (PHG) who keeps saying "no," and no one else seems to want to comment and help break the stalemate. We've been trying mediation for the last month, but without success, and even our mediator appears to have gone AWOL, with no posts for over a week now. I would very much like to find a way to move forward through this dispute without having to further escalate it towards ArbCom, and it's my genuine hope that if we could just get some more editors actually commenting there to prove a consensus, it could help a great deal. Any assistance appreciated, Elonka 17:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Last time I tried to help, you were both more interested in fighting than negotiating a solution. Above you ask me to review a your version versus his version situation and comment. My comment is that a your version versus his version situation is the problem and is not a solution. WAS 4.250 17:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I completely agree with you.  :) The preferable solution would be if both PHG could work in a cooperative manner on one version of the article. However, this has not proven possible, since he tends to revert me whenever I make a change to "his" article. In the meantime, he's been pouring more and more information into the article, to the point where it's now over 167K in length, which is making it less and less likely that anyone can offer a coherent comment on it. What I'd like to do, is shrink the article back to manageable size, with a version that most people are in agreement with, and then we go from there. However, if you have other suggestions on a good way to proceed through this, I am definitely open to hearing them? --Elonka 18:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My proposal from the article's talk page (Sept. 24) said: "I propose we resolve these factual disputes one at a time, using the method of each side presenting their preferred version of a specific paragraph (or as close to that as makes sense) with references, each side agreeing or disagreeing with the sources and interpretations (I must trust you two to agree on acceptable sources, I am not qualified; but if you can't agree maybe you can agree on the facts you rely on to make that decision and others like myself can help weigh those facts in a judgement of which sources are acceptable for what claims) and we'll see if all of us together can agree on a wording that fairly represents reliable relevant published sources." WAS 4.250 18:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I would actually be delighted to use that kind of process. I've been trying something like that at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance, but it does not appear to have been successful so far. Perhaps you could weigh in, or offer further advice on how we might be able to better communicate? --Elonka 18:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Contributions Summary for current fundraiser

As of 2007-11-05 Amount of Contributions in USD is 390,829.74 with roughly 1000 contributors a day and 1000 dollars an hour; but to be exact, 27.80 dollars per contribution so far. WAS 4.250 17:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

Yours isn't enabled. Durova^Charge! 18:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I know. I don't do e-mail. I only interact with regard to wikimedia on wikimedia wiki sites. For example I read http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/ and http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/ but I reply, if at all, by editing on wikipedia and the meta wiki site. I realize this limits my involvement and sometimes I have to not edit some specific article as part of willingly "not being in the loop". See BONZIBUDDY above for an example of just such a thing. WAS 4.250 19:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, we need you in arbcom. I think you want the job for personal gain in that wikipedia is famous and being a wheel here might help open doors for you; but I don't have a problem with that - in fact, it makes me think you have good sense. People who appear to act only out of altruism are deceiving themselves, others or both. WAS 4.250 19:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Was, I think you've been paying too much attention to the spin that Gregory Kohs (aka MyWikiBiz) has been trying very hard to put on things. He was here to make a buck off Wikipedia, and I investigated his practices and helped make sure he stayed banned after Jimbo had enough of him. He's been very proactive about offline communication and has posted comments to every offsite article I've published. Actually when I began the column I published pseudonymously in order to avoid any appearance of that, but a few of the people from the attack sites insisted on disclosing my name so I began using it. Now they're trying to spin the effects of their own decision to out me into some supposed idea that I'm here for profit. I respect you, and I'm sorry to see you lend any credence to that. Durova^Charge! 19:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A Kohs sock from a week ago:[6][7]. Durova^Charge! 19:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had seen him trolling you there. You deleted his trolling before I was able to get to it (which would have been an uninvolved person doing it and would have looked better). I am fully up on the situation between you two and I am on your side, in spite of his newfound respect for me over BONZIBUDDY. He wants to make a buck any way he can within legal limits. We need to protect Wikipedia from amoral selfish manipulation. You wish to help wikipedia and will "do well by doing good". There is nothing wrong with that. I think that after being outed you decided to make lemon-aide from the lemon. As long as your real life identity was known, why not turn that into something positive you thought (I think). So now you are doing what Greg wanted to do (after he was kicked off Wiikipedia) which is to be known by publishers as a go-to person for explaining Wikipedia COI and other things. I think he's trying to take out his competition (you); while you are a straight-shooter just telling the truth as best you know it - as do I. He's not a bad guy; just someone trying to put food on the table and living in an economic system that tells him winning is everything. What he might not get is that he is being used as a tool of the economic system. People don't realize just how sophisticated the psychological manipulation machine called modern capitalism is. WAS 4.250 20:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm, well to be candid I've had a soft spot for you ever since you created the Sherlock Holmes award. Did I ever thank you properly? Anyway, I've always gravitated toward important areas where volunteers were scarce and WP:COIN has been one of those places. The progression, if there's been one, has been entirely organic. I became a Wikipedian originally because the Joan of Arc article needed help, and when I found out why it was such a difficult page to improve at that time I learned the ropes of dispute resolution and investigations. And Greg Kohs would likely be a lot more successful if he redirected his Wikipedia-related energies into more work building that website he's running. I don't bear him any grudge, but some uninvolved observers have said it's pretty clear he bears me one. Either way (shrug) I appreciate challenging input from intelligent people who don't always agree with me. That means you. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 21:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft does not have a grudge against its competitors. I doubt that Greg has one against you. It's worse than a grudge; it's business. At least that's my read on it. He has bragged about obtaining paying lecture jobs talking about Wikipedia and COI. You are competition in his eyes. WAS 4.250 22:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

He was posting nasty things about me before I ever started publishing offsite. And really, having investigated the matter in some depth, he appears to have a track record of pursuing grudges in ways that act counter to his own interests. That's my considered opinion, but of course it might also be a matter of perspective. I observed it in a couple of cases before the focus turned to me, though. Durova^Charge! 22:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

<<<Ok. Let's take this one item at a time.

1. You say "He was posting nasty things about me before I ever started publishing off-site." I'm discounting heat of the moment stuff in evaluating current motivation. Everyone gets emotional at times.
2. You say "And really, having investigated the matter in some depth, he appears to have a track record of pursuing grudges in ways that act counter to his own interests." OK. Now this would be evidence that I don't have and would affect my opinion. Care to share a link or two? If not, then perhaps your view of what is in his interests does not match his view of what is in his interests. For example, I do not believe that Microsoft is best pursuing its interests with regard to Linux, but I don't therefore assume their behavior is "grudge" based. People make misjudgements all the time.
3. You say "That's my considered opinion, but of course it might also be a matter of perspective. I observed it in a couple of cases before the focus turned to me, though." I believe you when you tell me what you are thinking. But consider this: I bet that he would accept a paid debate job wherein the two of you toured various venues debating aspects of Wikipedia like some guy and his opponent do on creation vs. evolution. He's about money. That's where his head is at. (Think "male psychology". You know - results oriented.) I think that perhaps you project emotions on him that are, while perhaps present, not at all determining in his behavior. But then maybe that's just me projecting! WAS 4.250 04:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

One more comment about Greg and you. Self-promotional half-truths that are at best misleading, and according to higher ethical standards constitute lies, are so common in the media as to be literally unremarkable; while at organizations with exacting standards of validity/truth such as what Wikipedia aspires to be it is a cause of great concern. Greg's self-promotional misleading statements at Wikipedia are cause to exile him from Wikipedia because his efforts here are incompatible with the aims and goals of a NPOV encyclopedia; but his similar efforts in talking to the media are par for the course in that venue. Greg has shown too little understanding that Wikipedia is not a part of "the media" as he understands it; while you seem not to distinguish between his self promotion on Wikipedia and off of it. "Well, that's just Greg promoting himself again" is better than "Greg is lying about Wikipedia!" Nuance and savoir-faire are always useful. WAS 4.250 22:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What WP is

I am posting this here instead of at WT:SOCK as some might see it as an attempt to continue drama.

• First and foremost, WP is an attempt to be a NPOV encyclopedia.
• Second and close to the first, is WP is a community that works together to improve #1.
• A distant and distinct last is that it is a way for people to wield power over others which is totally in opposition to #1 and #2.

Claiming to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit then biting people whose status as socks is questionable is not the thing to do. If they show themselves to be a sock, it can be undone. The current Sadi Carnot ArbCom case has shown while this can lead to a disruption, it can be reviewed and reverted in a short time frame.

I am going to try to stay out of the admin side of things as it appears my comments are not wanted but if I see something that really scares me, I am going to comment. I hope Durova considers what I sent her and strikes her accusation. Being tagged as a SSP with very flimsy evidence and no claim of who I am supposed to be strikes me as a Witch Hunt. I am assuming good faith as I know this is what she does but it still really hurts. spryde | talk 20:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were hurt by poorly founded accusations. That sort of witch-hunting assume-bad-faith personal-attack is both against policy and required by a policy that includes both freedom to anon edit and rules against blocked/banned editors. You got caught in wikipedia's very own catch-22. Happens all the time. No one has a cure. WAS 4.250 20:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You say "A distant and distinct last is that it is a way for people to wield power over others which is totally in opposition to #1 and #2." I prefer to see "a way for people to wield power over others" as an engine that drives #1 and #2. We have to motivate our free help somehow, and at least until we implement stable versions we need people to fight the vandals and POV pushers. Those of us just here to write an encyclopedia don't want to do that as it is mopping up rather than creating. WAS 4.250 20:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Refactored, I would say "* Third is that it is a way for people to wield power positively over others to drive #1 and #2 to be better as a whole. I might actually put this on my user page. Oh, and don't be sorry. It wasn't you who did it. I kind of expected it eventually as I expressed something counter to the mainstream, but it still shocked me when it came. I don't hold it against anyone as I know they have the good of the project in their minds. spryde | talk 20:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

1918 Flu VS Black death answer

• Answer to your Talk:Spanish_flu#Why no recognition of the Spanish Flu?

First, 100 millions is hugly exagerated. The Pasteur Institute -world wildely look as the expert for this issue- talk about 20 millions deaths, and a maximum about 30 millions. This make about 1% of the world population of 1918 (about 2 billions).

The black death made about the same number of death worldwide, but with a world population estimated around 60 millions. This can be seen in the European Back death pandemy, where about 30% (!!!) of Europeans died.

The black death was a cataclisme, a shock, every one believing that 100% will die. The 1918 was hide by the 1918 World War 1 context, by military CENSURE, which forbidden to talk to much about the 1918 Flu, this censure allowing each village to believe that he was the only one so deeply affected.

All this made that the Black death continue to be really famous, while the 1918 Flu continue [sadly] to be under-know. Yug 07:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC) [sorry for this english]

Anything written before 200? about the number of deaths of the Spanish flu is out of date because of recent flu research motivated by H5N1. WAS 4.250 07:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Re : Denise Milani

Records show it was salted by another admin; I do not tend to salt articles. ;) Your justifications for notability appear to be mainly based on AskMen.com, but you might want to note that it was included in the article whilst the AfD discussion took place. Feel free to request deletion review if you are confident that the subject is notable to meet inclusion standards, though in my opinion you need something in addition to your sources provided to make for a strong case to overturn. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 17:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply. I had no way to know that "notability [...] mainly based on AskMen.com [...] was included in the article whilst the AfD discussion took place". Since that is the case, I agree with you that "something in addition to [my] sources provided [is needed] to make for a strong case to overturn". I guess that bio will have to wait a few months to a year; I'm sure she will increase in fame. WAS 4.250 20:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith?

I really don't think you acted with bad intentions and apologize if I gave that impression. It's more that there's a basic Catch-22: ANI is constructed for open discussion, but this isn't material that's suited for open discussion. So it's not very good at generating substantive challenges and the conversations that do arise tend to take several non-useful shapes with a fair amount of misunderstanding (honest misunderstanding on both sides, as it seems here). Based just on the number of TOR node IP posts that have been attempted there, it's safe to conclude that some individuals are just there to stir up trouble. So I wind up addressing the same concerns four times...five times...six times...whenever someone drops by and makes an off-target supposition about how I work. Most of those off-target suppositions very seriously underestimate the level of research and scrutiny that already goes into this work. So yes, I very much agree with the principle of a devil's advocate. It's actually a principle I've incorporated into my work for a long time. Durova^Charge! 17:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Avian flu

Thank you. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Evidence]. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Mind the edits, not the editor

Essay:

From WP:COI: "Editors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in main-space."

"Mind the edits, not the editor" is fundamental to a site where anons can edit.

Unfortunately there are people who have distinctive patterns who act to make wikipedia worse. Unfortunately we have to rely on free help to deal with these people and the free help doesn't always correctly understand that it is encyclopedia-hurting-patterns that are at issue because other aspects (even the same IP#) can be shared by other people helping wikipedia (e.g. someone else in the family). Unfortunately most people motivated to spend hours a day doing this get off on the power or glory or some such thing and that can lead to problems. The bottom line is that wikipedia is better off with some warrior admins rather than having no one to fight the warrior anti-wikipedians. The fact that we have multiple cabals of warrior admins who fight each other has both good and bad aspects.

The English language Wikipedia is both a useful collection of information (claims and sources) organized as a forever-unfinished encyclopedia and also is a self-governing civil organization with rules that lean towards anarchy (WP:IAR) with all that that entails. The 'pedia is useful and every year even more useful while the civil organization is useful in that they create the 'pedia.WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please consider correcting a possible error

Please see [8]... as I believe you have misspoken. (or I have... if so do you have a diff you could share?) Thanks. I would have mailed you about this but you have mail turned off. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading on wikipedia where you said that. So either my memory is wrong, or else the diff exists, or the diff has been oversighted/deleted. Given the history of wikipedia in the matter, I'm not going to waste time looking for a diff that may have been oversighted. But, likewise, I'm human, and there is also the possibility that I have mis-remembered who said that. There is no chance that no one said that, so if there is no diff that says "Just to be clear [Durova asked me to oversight and I passed it on]" then that statement was oversighted also. It was on a talk page where the question of the oversight was being questioned, one of the few pages filled with the Durova talk, not some obscure page; so if it has not been covered up, someone else will run across it. That said, I don't see that it matters much. WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I disagree with you. You've made an unfounded statement about a serious matter, and when pressed to substantiate it, you can't, and then you say you don't think it matters much. I'm not sure that's the best approach. It may be overcome by events now I suppose, but I do want to point that out. ++Lar: t/c 12:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Seth asked a question. I answered the question. As an afterthought, I added some data I thought might be useful (that included the item about you). You dispute my memory. I reply above that that is how I remember what I read, but with the oversighting going on I can't rely on what I read still being there. Just let it go, ok? WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to correct ones self when one actually erred, or can't be bothered to stand behind what one said, in the place where one made the initial misstatement, and you don't think so. That's fine, forgiven and forgotten. But going forward I'm probably going to take your statements with a bit less weight, and perhaps, so should others. Point made, I'm done. Happy editing. ++Lar: t/c 13:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You have not proved I am in error. Do I ask you to prove your claim or to retract it? No, I do not. You could search for what I read and show me that it says other than what I remember. You do not conduct such a search. Nor do I. When Wikipedia wipes its pages clean of evidence, this is the result - lack of evidence becomes no proof of anything. Not my fault. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

So in other words then, would you say it's a fair statement that you feel you can make whatever unfounded or faulty allegation you like, against whomever you like, and as long as it can't actually be proven false, you feel no need to prove it true or even try to back it up, and are fine with leaving it stand in the place where you said it, without offering any clarification. I say again I never said anything regarding oversight of anything related to this, so it comes down to my word (and my fans at WR say I'm "too stupid to lie", by the way... I may have to frame that quote, it's priceless) against yours. I suppose I could go ask the oversighters if any of them oversighted some of my words away but if they say they didn't, I suppose that wouldn't satisfy you either. Really, I'm done, I've more than made my point about your approach, which I really think lacks quite a bit, putting it mildly. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

<<<I remember reading a post on one of the Durova incident pages which said that the person posting wished to make clear that he has received a message from Durova complaining about the post of the email and that he had passed on that complaint and that the post was signed as your above post was signed. And the context was discussion of the oversight (in a prior section). WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Lovely flowers, equally kind wishes. Much appreciated. Let's move forward. Durova^Charge! 05:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Petroleum crisis in Agriculture

Hi there & thanks for the message on my page (which seems in fact to be aimed at the writer, which is User:24.225.185.179 not me). Puzzled as to why you've been deleting this section without discussion... The writer has reinstated it once, and I have once, in my case with a request to discuss before further deletion. Your explanation of "original research" clearly does not apply, and I'm afraid "this section is utter nonsense" can hardly be called a reasoned argument, even if it were true.

If you have serious objections to the section as it stands you are of course entitled to them – but surely the correct route is to discuss them on the talk page and provide proper reasons? I'm sure you did not intend vandalism, but wouldn't you say that wholesale deletion without adequate explanation looks rather similar?

I'm not going to reinstate the section yet, as I do not wish to continue a tit-for-tat. However, if you aren't prepared to explain your position on the talk page in the next few days, I'll have to assume your objection is not a serious one after all.

Personally, I think the section as it stands does need a fair amount of work, and perhaps your suggestion of a more general section on energy prices and agriculture is a good one. However, in my view it could hardly be a more important topic and it certainly does deserve inclusion in some form.

Regards, --Richard New Forest (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious that it was garbage. As I was wrong that it is obvious, I will certainly add some comments to the talk page. I found nothing worth salvaging in the section but if rewritten based on cost of energy sources perhaps you might find something sourced worth keeping. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Contact me

Please email me. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't do email. How may I help on Wikipedia? WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Your post on WT:RFAr/Durova et al.

Hi. This is just to let you know I have reposted your excellent post onto the WikiEN-l mailing list (with attribution of course). See [9]. KTC 16:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. WAS 4.250 05:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)