Why were the pages belonging to this user deleted? I see that there were previously 96 edits on the talk page and 88 edits on the main user page. Bahn Mi22:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the complements on the McClintock article. I have another biography to read before it's finished. I was wondering how you found the text- would it be confusing for people that don't know anything about genetics? --nixie04:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am a geneticist so I am probably not the best to ask. My feeling would be don't dumb it down too much since the reader should be able to research the scientific words. It might be a good idea to have a summary of her major accomplishments. Everyone knows about her jumping genes but the cytogenetics, especially the telomere contribution, is equally impressive. This may get lost to the lay reader the way the article is currently formatted. David D.(Talk)09:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Fog&Sunny3.JPG. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}.) See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --cohesion | talk07:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for information about EADS as I have to make an essay on this company...I have just seen your comment about EADS, so you may help me to find information about the different criticisms made on this company. Do you know any website, any newspaper or any article about it ?
Thank you for everything,
Best regards,
Ariabel
zelliafr@yahoo.fr
Ronald20 (talk·contribs) does occasionally do some good edits, so I try not to do Pavlovian knee -jerk reverts of his edits. One reason for that is that although he has never responded to any attempts to contact him he does seem to learn by example sometimes. Therefore I try, whenever possible, to do some cleanup on an article that he has edited instead of just simple reverts. You can see some more information about Ronald20 at User:BlankVerse/RonaldWatch.
You should watch that you don't blame every weird edit on TV and radio articles on Ronald20. He only edits from that user name, from dial-up IPs from the o1.com ISP, and from lausd.net (Los Angeles Unified School District). Also, his edit style is very obvious to me. There is another editor that has been dubbed the AOLBroadcastFan (see User:ErikNY/AOLBroadcastFan), plus there are a couple of other editors with odd editing habits that also edit broadcast articles.
Ronald20 doesn't do that much editing, and when he does his edits are usually easy to track. Furthermore, the falsehoods that he adds are usually very easy to spot (adding a death date way in the future to Snoop Dogg, saying that the Dodge nameplate has been retired, adding that KDIS (K-Disney) has abandoned their kid-friendly format). I have a much greater problem, for example, with editors who want to add unchallenged ID nonsense to the evolution article, or bigots who add trash to the Kwanzaa article. For more of my musing on Wikipedia issues, you can check out BlankVerse's ever-lengthening Wikipedia rants.
As for my "Use the Wikipedia at your own risk!" warning: It is just an enhanced and expanded, as well as more visible and more insistent version of the warning at Wikipedia:General disclaimer that you find linked to on every Wikipedia page. It's the version that I think that the Wikipedia should be using, but for now I will settle for it being on my user pages. I have been thinking of turning it into a subpage so that I can occasionally modify it while keeping the version on both my user page and talk page synchronized. If I do that, I will notify you if you want so that you can transclude that version. BlankVerse∅04:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As for the template: You should probably edit my editorial comment in the line "Wikipedia articles may be vandalized—either by immature kids or bigots" to just "Wikipedia articles may be vandalized".
As for the Jimbo comment: I think that you should consider Hanlon's Razor. Both the aesthetics and self-confidence reasons are misguided in my opinion. As far as self-confidence goes, I think that one of the great things about the Wikipedia is that we are freely willing to admit that there are many areas of the Wikipedia that are crap, but have also that we have the confidence (faith?) that the Wikipedia will improve over time. That is being extremely self-confident. BlankVerse∅05:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what I could link it to, but there probably should be a line in my disclaimer that says "the Wikipedia is a work in progress". If I can't find something to link it to, there probably should be an Wikipedia namespace article written on that topic. BlankVerse∅06:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That view of the school Wiki u gave was excellent and very true. I doubt the school watch people cares about thier own schools.I come across just horrible school articles and heavy vandalism of them alot and I havent seen one revert made by the 3 main members:Kappa, Nicolumus79, Thiverr. Thats is some thing that needs to change. Im one of the few who acually reverts nonsense junk in schools articles and some times Im tempt to AFD them but I cant do anything has its probaly going to be kept. Thats why I normally vote delete on schools cause It just will be another badly vandalised article later on and I belive a school wiki should be made cause of that. Im going to email Ryan Norton as he is in a permanint wikibreak and cant do anything in talk about creating the vote page for the new school wiki and hopefully there the vandalism goes away and both deletetionist and illusionist of those schools be happy. --JAranda | watz sup01:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a redirect should do for the moment. According to the manual of style, the first instance of mitochondrial myopathy can now be bolded on that page. Hopefully one day it will become its own article, but it's not a priorty of mine to work on that now... unless one of my patients turns out to have it & I'll be forced to read up on it :-) JFW | T@lk19:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Templates is a really tough question. I just keep finding so many exceptions, that it's really hard to find a pattern. You're right that I've been doing a separate table each time. I realize the problems with this. However, I find it's problematic forcing a standard. Different jurisdictions, use wildly different terms, for the same thing. Canadian schools have unique organizations, like Separate school districts (not public, and not private). Often, what's one item in one school, could be multiple items for another. But, even within Alberta, I find patterns difficult.
Some schools "feed" or are "fed" by certain others schools, while other schools have no such special relationships.
I had hoped that I would see a pattern, and then create/update a template, but so far, the pattern hasn't stabilized. Just recently, I've dealt with what should be a simple field "Primary language" (e.g. English or French). However, there are different cases: French language schools run by French school districts for French families, and French immersion schools run by English language districts for English families. So, I'm not sure how to make a template flexible enough to handle such stuff, but simple enough for simple cases. So, anyhow, I'll have to keep thinking about this one. It ain't simple. --rob15:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I think you could be right that there are too many exceptions. One possability is to have a template, such that the overall look is standardised, but not specify the variables so that users can use what is most appropriate for each scenario. An example of this can be see in the Template:Infobox_School where you will notice there is one "free_label" and "free_text" option. i used this for the mascot option since mascot seem to be pretty big in the US. Consider a template where most of the variables are defined as free_text1, 2, 3 etc. This may allow the flexability that is required but help keep a predictable look to the infoboxes. David D.(Talk)16:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think, regardless of whether we use templtes in all cases, we can still specify a standard. Perhaps, make a semi-standard template. If people don't use it, they'll still be asked to conform to things like field order, and terminology to the greatest extend possible. Maybe it's best to create a template, that actually lists every conceivable field that you would want. Even if it's not always used, it sets the standard. For instance, not everybody will say "mascot", or "Primary language". But, we can insist that "Primary language" comes before "Mascot" if used. And it might dictate a term like "Primary language" be used instead of "Main language". --rob16:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be a good idea to standardise the order. In this way it will be easy to scan down any school template to find the required information and it will obviously be absent once readers become aware there is a defined order. David D.(Talk)16:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thought. I agree that merging may not necessarily be the best solution, but then neither is everything having its own little article. The schools group is taking a very scattergun approach to the issue, blasting out a whole muzzleful of substubs and hoping that some of them will take. I contend that's not the best way to provide people with quality information.
I recently did a small study on the fate of school articles. I looked at the entire set of school articles for the states of California and Texas (I chose those two because they were big states and likely to have lots of school articles.) I was especially interested in the long-term fate of an article, so I was looking for articles more than a year old. I found twelve. Of the twelve, only two had undergone substantial growth since their initial writing. Five others had undergone some growth. Five were essentially unchanged. This means that nearly half the articles had not shown any improvement since they were first created. Now we have people on the schools bandwagon creating stubs like there was no tomorrow. My guess is that most of them will also be unchanged this time next year. The percentage may well end up being worse than it is now, because a greater number of people are creating stubs for the sake of creating stubs, and there is no vested interest in seeing the articles improve. I think the eventualists are really dreaming with their eyes open when it comes to school articles.
re Talk:Washington Elementary School: WikiProject Schools needs to start a major disambiguation campaign because I keep finding school articles where there should be disambiguation pages. Many of the articles should be obvious that they should be disambiguation pages (like Washington Elementary School), but the majority of school articles should be checked against Google to verify that their school name is unique. This should be done for both school articles and school redirects.
After creating a couple of school disambiguation pages tonight, I am wondering whether there should be a school disambiguation template, so that you could have a school disambiguation category. BlankVerse13:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools pages, and any other page that have to do with schools on the Wikipedia, are so disfunctional that I refuse to get involved in any of them. I even read the riot act to User:Denni when he copied something to the WPSchools talk page that I had left on his talk page because I don't even want that level of involvement.
About 85% of the people involved in those pages have already made up their mind so it doesn't matter what argument you come up with. It would be nice if they could just agree on some common sense measures as far as creating disambiguation pages and school district articles, but I can't see them even agreeing on that!
Sorry to break the news to you, but I already told someone that "professional wrestling" is not a sport, according to Vincent Kennedy McMahon, but "scripted entertainment", which is why you should have left the Eddie Guerrero death story on the current events page. NoseNuggets 11:08 AM US EST Nov 15 2005.
To me Calgary Board of Education and Calgary Catholic School District are what district articles should be, in order to be encyclopedic. Notice I exclude phone numbers, and per-school attendance. They don't list all 300 Calgary schools. Instead they use the space to talk about the actual district, and what is mentioned in the high-school-only listing, has less-volitile info (e.g. grade ranges not attendance). Follow the blue-links in those school articles, and you'll find proper encyclopedic school articles (showing the potential of regular schools). A district article should inform the reader of the district, and not just list data.
In any event, I think your example shows that merges don't fix anything, they just transfer problems.
Also, on your comment
"This is one reason why i sympathise with the delete votes when editors do not finish the job they start. Sure they get cleaned up after Afd but how many don't? These article that don't pass through Afd are the problem."
Unfortunately, comments like this forced me to stop fixing the typical AFD'd school (as it encouraged more nominations-for-cleanup). I took huge numbers of previously AFD'd schools off my watch list. I've frequently improved articles that were never AFD'd, but of course that goes unseen, as do countless great school articles. You can't form an opinion on potential of school articles from the AFD listing, or the school-stub categories. Of course, even without me improving the AFD'd school articles, and even without me voting (most recently) they're still all kept, just with less improvement. Despite your comments, I finish school articles I start, and the problem of incomplete articles being created is not specific to schools, and neither is the solution. --Rob10:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm sorry for being overly defensive and less polite than I should be. I appreciate your open mindness on mergers, as I know I'm a broken record on my district theories. I agree with the goals you have, I just am not sure of the next step. I so wish we could tell people they just can't make masses of stubs, if they don't ever finish what they start (I don't expect complete works instantly, but I expect more than a sub-stub). There's probably little hope for it now, but I still think its a good idea if we could somehow change policy to move sub-stubs to some sort of "Request for new school article" page (with no loss of info). As really, "X is a school in county Y" is really a request for an article, and not an actual article. I think half the idea behind mergers is good: the information isn't ready *yet* for a school article (because raw data isn't sufficient to sustain an article). However, its the moving it to another article (the district) that's the problem. If we could just move it out of article space, but not loose the data (to appease the strongest inclusionists, I don't mind loosing sub-stub data myself). But, I suspect we'll have to come up some with some brand new idea before this is all settled.
p.s. As for the school pages you've made/edited (that you alluded to), consider putting some on you userpage as a model to others. Concrete examples are great. --Rob18:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your question is maybe. It's possible that Eddie is a troll, however it's also likely that he's a newbie, possibly young and inexperienced. I'm going to try to assume good faith and give him the benefit of the doubt. The more people involved, the better, so please be mindful of his contribs. At this point, he could really use a mentor. --Viriditas02:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly Eddie is either a troll or — well, I don't know what words to use that wouldn't sound like a personal attack — unable for unspecified reasons to understand Wikipedia policy. Assuming good faith means to assume the latter, though edits like [1] give one pause. Still, I can't say I've seen him making edits that he doesn't seem to think are true. On balance, I'd say that a revert-on-sight rule isn't the right call; so far, even with his puppets, he isn't that prolific. It's probably best to continue to treat his edits on a case-by-case basis for the moment. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have faith in Eddie, I will help Eddie. Let me do that, I will try to make sure he does good, and becomes a fit user. If these things with Eddie would continue then I will take responsibility. I don't know why, but I really want to help this one, he seems like something good could come from him. QuentinPierce07:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Eddie, I noticed you are thinking of going for another attempt in April. I am glad you are taking it one step at a time and not rushing to get anopther RfA too soon. I did have a look at your contributions and they appear to be pretty good. No arguments in a while too. Keep that up and i'm sure you will get a sympathetic view. David D.(Talk)17:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Re: you comments on Silensor's page - Yes, there should be something merged, which is exactly why I copied the entire text to the talk page of the city and asked for input. The "district" idea as discussed on WP:SCH is good, too. It seems, though, that schools will not stay merged. brenneman(t)(c)23:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The harm is that an 89 kilobyte thesaurus doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. If nothing else, note the "article size" warning at the top when you edit the page. "Having examples" means one or two sentences with a handful of examples, not an attempt to catalogue every conceivable term. The Literate Engineer18:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point about having examples, and I agree that there should be a few to illustrate the concept. However, I don't think there should be so many examples that anyone would think to call it a list. Like I said, I think there should be a handful - half a dozen at most, and embedded in the article's text. So for all intents and purposes, I think the list should be removed altogether, but non-listed examples inserted. The Literate Engineer18:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly live with a pruned down list of examples, that is then incorporated into the text. I just thought that the way the list was removed completely was pretty random. I noticed that the box, top right, is a link to some good examples in wikisaurus. It seems that there are plenty of examples in the list that could be transfered to wikisaurus? Or is that not an appropriate use of wikisaurus?David D.(Talk)18:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, it's an appropriate use of wikisaurus. Actually, I hadn't even heard of Wikisaurus until UncleG told me that somebody'd suggested transwiking the whole list to Wikisaurus. I assumed, based on that box, that the transwikiing of legitimate terms was complete. The Literate Engineer22:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first I've heard of wikisaurus too. It sounds like the perfect place for the list. In that way the unobtrusive link box to wikisaurus, at the top of the page, should satify those that want to keep the list. Certainly I would support such a compromise. David D.(Talk)22:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It makes my day when someone takes the time to thank me for my work. Let me reciprocate by thanking you for looking out for all my typos. Christianjb07:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm delighted to see at least one person not condemning me as some kind of anti-intellectual. However I suspect I will be soon be the target of personal attacks, having been vaulted into the WP:SCH spotlight like that. No worries though, I'm prepared to deal with it. What I was really trying to say (though it probably did not come out right) is that for an article on an individual school to be included in a world-wide encyclopedia, the article better be pretty f---in' interesting as about 99% of individual schools are literally unknown to people living 3+ county lines away.
Uh, oh... as I hit the preview button to check for typographical errors, I see that I have new messages. Battlestations, men.
Hi FoN, I apologise for opening the flood gates, as well as advertising this essay before prime time. I mistakenly thought, since it was in the essay category, you were comfortable with it. A lesson learned on my part. I will certainly help support you if there is any retribution, although, I'd hope that would not be the case. David D.(Talk)20:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you've given up on the whole compromise thing at WP:SCH. Until the latest AFD I'd have been inclined to try to bring you back to the table and part of me wants to still. But I too am starting to feel that a compromise is lost on the "keep" set. They aren't losing many schools with the status quo and aren't inclined to negotiate. Most of them have been taking the Nicodemus75 approach and frankly it's starting to piss me off. I'm not saying we should "cabal" ourselves yet. But my patience is wearing thin and the time may soon come to organize deletionists into a delete crappy school stubs organization. Because the lack of movement from the keepers is starting to wear thin. Deletionists have been compromising but I'm not seeing it from most of the other side.Gateman199719:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Gateman, I feel I have tried really hard and there is no sign of anyone budging. I sometimes wonder if they are quick to take offense on purpose. They always seem to see an alteria motive in every comment. I just don't desire to waste any more time on this project. I have already invest much more than I would like. Sorry for caving in so soon. David D.(Talk)20:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just a word of warning: If you really do nominate a bunch of substub school articles at AFD, the inclusionists will start to retaliate. There was one of Snowspinner's RFC's, for example, which looked for awhile like they might even try to drag him through an RFAR. I've seen them, at least twice, threatened RFC's when someone started nominating too many schools (which seems to be more than one nom/day).
For an opposite tactic, I have been awfully tempted to start creating substubs for preschools, just to see if the inclusionists would vote yes on those when they show up for AFD. BlankVerse21:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. I am more likely to ignore all schools. I certainly don't intend to be disruptive or intend to make a point (other than making comments). However, you never know when you might come across something that is a clear speedy delete. In fact I just found out from Kappa that the school watch project has a schools needing to be cleaned up section. If I were to make any point I would direct the school micro stubs there before Afd. I don't mind giving them time to clean up the micro stubs. However, if months pass with no or limited action I think it is safe to say they can be deleted. It is clear wikipedia has good guidelines as to what an article should be including minimal context and content. David D.(Talk)21:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest letting them (it's 2 machines now) make any edits they want for the next few hours. Don't fight it. See my comments on the associated discussion page. We can work out what to do later. There shouldn't be a hurry. Everything is saved. Just let them continue- it will be seen as obvious vandalism by the admins. Keep me informed of any news. ThanksChristianjb18:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I'm hoping that persistance and vigilance will win out. AiG is a multi-million dollar company who care a great deal about perceived negative PR. It's been a struggle to keep up with the anon edits. I've been spending hours every night on this. I'm not going to quit on this page. Christianjb04:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I didn't see your comment until just now because you accidently left it on my user page- not my talk page. Anyway- sorry again for not being as careful as I should be with reading your comments. Thanks for the assistance. Christianjb10:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These are the questions (and I'm sorry for putting them so bluntly).
Would the neologisms "homonazi" and "sodomofascist" be offensive to most homosexuals? Would they be considered particularly offensive because of the documented persecution in the Holocaust?
Could it be considered offensive for an encyclopedia article to point out the connection between these neologisms and the possible connection with the Holocaust? For instance, would the Jewish community in general feel that it diminishes their suffering for each group to claim they were persecuted- when it was one particular group, the Jews that suffered the worst destruction?
Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. I personally consider the neologisms to be offensive, but as this has been the subject of some dispute with other editors I would like your input.
I want to be accountable for this email, so my full address is:
(removed)
Hmm I'm not sure about your edit. It's confusing at the moment. Is this section about the creation of the first life-form or is it about evolution? I started out discussing specifically AiG's interpretation about evolution- not the first life-form. Part of the confusion arose because I wrote about 'spontaneous generation'- because AiG talks about the probability of life-forms coming into existance which are obviously not "the first life-form". Their pages really muddy the issue- because I'm really never sure if they really mean that a bacterium for instance really spontaneously generates- which as they are right to point out is fantastically improbable. But it's all attacking a straw man- only the first replicating molecule needs to be explained by an 'origin of life' theory', everything else we explain by descent with modification. Christianjb05:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
i have not finished yet. I was just trying to clean up the mess in that section rather than do a heavy revert. First i want to pair it down to the minimal content and then see wht is left. It may get added back. The bottom bit is a mess at the moment so I saved the top bit before going further. The first sentence is bad. I don't know or scientists that use the term evolution for the origin of life. Also it is very subjective when you define life. It is just convenient for AiG to define it as the first cell. As it is convenient for them to call origin of life evolution and I agree they are tearing down strawman arguments. Obviously the self replicating chemistry before a cell could easily be defined as life. Certainly the self replicating biochemtry that predates cells would be under Darwinian type selection. Feel free to change stuff around, I can work with that too. David D.(Talk)05:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm way too tired to mess around with this tonight- so let's see what the morning's anon reverts do and take it from there! Christianjb06:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'm a little bit perturbed whenever I see any of my Shakespearean-quality words edited by another user. Anyway- I like most of what you've done and I'm going to be interested to see if it survives the night. I guess my main point in all of this was that AiG continuously attacks POV's that no evolution scientists hold- and I think most of that argument has survived.
Feel free to modify my bad grammar to Shakespearean-like quality. Please use thy eyes and wit, I hath little time to scribe said prose. Or do you jest my liege? but seriously the number of strawman arugments are incredible. i have had no reason to read AiG literature before now it is depressing. What is the deal with marriage and the church? Don't atheists get married in civil ceremonies all the time? I had no idea that marrriage was only legal in the eyes of God, I suppose all those French should stop bothering with their civil ceremonies prior to traipsing to the local church to get married in the eyes of God. I'm beginning to see a pattern with AiG. They hurl so many strawmen at you that you get beaten by the volume not by the arguments themselves. David D.(Talk)16:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to see how this section can be written so that it satisfies everyone. I would at least like the AiG supporters to accept that their statements regarding evolution are thoroughly rejected by modern scientists. The trouble is, they will try desperately to show that there's a controversy amongst mainstream scientists regarding evolution- when there really isn't. Every single mainstream scientific organization is unanimous.
I have tried to write it in a way where it is obvious their ideas are strawmen without actually having to address their arguments. I think it is rough but a step in the right direction. David D.(Talk)16:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On a separate note- I don't know if you've been following my comments on the AiG talk page- where I call AiG a backwards fascist organization (or something like that). Yes- I know, it gives them enormous ammunition in discrediting my edits- but I think it's very important that we realize as Wikipedians that our own views and philosophies about a subject should not matter when editing the page. It really doesn't matter to me whether creationists edit the AiG page, and I have been careful not to insult or offend them when dealing with their questions. Let's be honest- this is in part a propaganda war. The supporters want to use quotes and facts that are relevant to their position and I want to use quotes and facts that are relevant to mine. It's not totally chaotic- I think it's a good way of covering both sides of the debate. However, there's a difference between passionate debate (good) and personal insults (bad) of which I've been receiving quite a lot of lately. I'm not made of stone and it is starting to get to me, but I am determined not to respond in kind by insulting those editors who are attacking me.Christianjb09:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that in passing. i had assumed you were using it as a rhetorical device. I have seen that done before in wikipedia and as you guessed your critics will pounce on that argument alone. See the RFA at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Aaron_Brenneman and read the comments by Sjakkalle in the neutral section. All your other words will become silent due to the distraction it adds. It means your critics do not have to address the substance of your criticism. My advice would be keep it simple and don't use such debating tactics. it just gives them more mud to sling and a perfect excuse to ingnore the substance. David D.(Talk)16:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your response seemed a bit shrill. What say we both just cool off for a while?
For my part, I will post nothing about our conversation until Monday of next week (unless you invite it), other than to thank you for taking the time to engage me on this most confusing and fractious issue. I really do appreciate your efforts to communicate, and I regret any shortness or polemics which annoyed you.
We did in fact speak, and I was wrong to imply that we hadn't!
Well i was a bit taken a back. I was just trying to discuss your edits from my perspective. I thought that would be useful for you. To paraphrase what you say about the evolution polls at the bottom of your talk page We owe it to you to let you know who supports your edits and who doesn't. Only good faith discussion will help the consensus building. David D.(Talk)16:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could I ask you put some comment on the talk page of Template:Schoolzone to clarify/explain its desired usage. Since, we already have "stub" tags, I assume "schoozone" is basically targetted to a sub-set of stubs, in dire need of attention (If I'm correct, that's a good tag to have). Basically, I'ld like a guide to know when an article is good enough to take off this tag. --Rob18:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't put a specific time-line before merge/redirect. I think merge/redirect (and timing) really has to be based on its practicality in the specific case. For the most simple cases, like a one-line elem sub-stubs in a small US-districts I wouldn't mind such a redirect being done fairly quickly. If somebody wishes to do undo such a redirect (for instance my redirect of Birchview was undone), that's fine *if* the same person gives the article attention (either way the article has attention). High schools, and more unique schools (like charters, privates, and special-purpose), should be given much more time to grow as stand-alone articles. Where there's not a clear merge target, a merge probably shoudn't be done (I'm quite willing to compromise and accept merges, but only if there's a clear target). Also, as soon as modest attention is given to a school article, I would remove the tag. Lets not let the category build up to big, otherwise individual articles will get lost in it. I just noticed you removed the tag Bayridge Secondary School and I think was good (both adding when you did, and taking it off when you did). --Rob21:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree about the target being identified and useful for a merge. The nature of such a target is probably open to debate and should probably not be too restrictive since there will be different issues for a small school district vs a massive district, or a private vs public school, as you have already pointed out. I worked on the Lincoln Public Schools to make it a more useful target. There is no doubt that some of the middle schools will be merged into that page with redirects. I used the table format although I know some people have reservations about it. I would hope that other users might go through the merge excercise too and use a format that they prefer. You may have noticed i also created a potential merge target for the Bayridge Secondary School at Limestone District School Board. This is an example of a style that is a list with minimal content (certainly more useful for massive districts). It's always good to see examples of different styles. David D.(Talk)21:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Added: Perhaps listing schools with the tag is unnecessary, since they appear in the category. Instead, listing schools merged/redirected would be more useful. This allows a double-check to ensure the merge/redirect target is correct (a huge issue) and if somebody wishes to expand the article, they can undo the redirect, and give the school the appropriate individual attention. --Rob21:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is a good suggestion. I'll think about how to incorportate that into the category page as well as the template page. Thanks for the feedback. David D.(Talk)21:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think of it before, but I think you can add a category to the *talk* page of a redirected article. This could serve two purposes: The tag on the talk page of a redirect could explain the reason for the redirect (to avoid hasty un-redirects), and the category with the tag, could help people find the redirects. We obviously can't categorize redirects for our readers, but we can at least categorize the talk pages for editors, which lets us editors find them more easily (and manage them properly). A major issue with merges, will be maintaining the redirects, as they will have to be updated over time. --Rob21:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot Rob, I appreciate your support on this project. I'm pretty busy now but i'll try and get the lincoln public schools cleaned up and then open up write a synopsis of what happened for discussion. David D.(Talk)17:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting multiple people's contributions due to your own agenda/desires, isn't how Wikipedia works. My suggestion to you: see if anyone else agrees with you. You can't force your opinion on Wikipedia. If you continue to do so, I'll get some others involved. Consider that if you're the only one reverting multiple people's contributions, over and over, then you may be wrong. Of course, I'm referring to your reverts at List_of_deists.--Jason Gastrich23:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have no agenda. I have discussed with good faith. For Lincoln the consensus seems to be he is deist. Would you disagree? My agenda is to stop data being removed from the page before it has been discussed. David D.(Talk)23:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This issue isn't simply about Lincoln, so I will withhold my opinion on that issue for now. This issue is about your one-man revert war against two others. "Data" isn't being removed for no reason. User 152.163.101.9 has removed three names from the list because he/she doesn't think they are deists. Instead of your knee-jerk reverting, you should contact him/her and/or discuss in the talk page. If you keep it up, you'll violate the 3RR rule. --Jason Gastrich23:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From experience anon editors do not respond on their talk page. i reverted with an invitation to continue the discussion on the talk page of the article. Where is the anon editor? You are putting words into the anon editors mouth. We do not know why the anon editor removed those names. David D.(Talk)23:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how Gastrich knows 152.163.101.9 is a "long time contributor" as he put it? The only "long time" anything that appears to have come out of that IP is a persistent vandal Mr. Treason. I have to ask, is Gastrich claiming he knows this person? Mark K. Bilbo04:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I too wondered if he knew the user. But i think he just looked at the the edit history and assumed it was one user. Clearly he sees the IP as a "friend" since it is making the "correct" edits. I doubt he checked the IP's talk page, so never noticed the vandalism notices or that it was AOL and therefore could be any random user. Just a case of no research into the users history here, I think. No surprise there. David D.(Talk)05:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of compromise I didn't put "Darwinistic" back in. However, if you take the time to understand the rules and play the game, you will see that it is very Darwinistic. Perhaps this goes without saying, because drinking games that require coordination penalize those that have already consumed alcohol. Even so, the usage works and should not have been deleted in the first place.
Haizum02:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Darwinistic means that people are removed from the gene pool. How many of your friends died playing this game? If none it is not Darwinistic. See the talk page because I have since done some research and I agree with Viriditas that there is no way to verify virginia quarters. Your pdf does not count. David D.(Talk)02:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Malicious? The word has a real meaning and you used it inappropriately. An encyclopedia is the last place you should be using a word figuratively. David D.(Talk)02:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes. With the big POD publishers, it's often part of the "package" you buy. With some vanity presses, it may cost you extra. But getting one is no big thing. Mark K. Bilbo01:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By your contributions and own words on Kent Hovind's entry, I see that you dislike color commentary. Me too. The following comments are inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. They are considered color commentary.
"At that point, Ali G was able to cast doubt on Hovind's objections to evolution by asking his guest:"
"In response to Hovind's nervous objections to his method of proof,"
"Hovind's protestations of fecal innocence were unavailing."
These things read like a gossip column and need to be removed, immediately. I took some time and wrote an nPOV contribution, but Larvatus kept reverting it completely in favor of his own. Please help improve this entry. --Jason Gastrich21:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I used that link as a main source for it and rewrote some parts of it when I first created it. I also used facts from 3 sources, a annon in DYK and a few sports cards, but some of it does look identical I agree. I know it's not a copyvio and tried not to make it as one. I rewrote some of the content right now. Thanks --Jarandawat's sup02:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is what Daycd is really all about. He was responding to an absurd proposal that I had posted for another "holier than though" Wikipedian (Zoe), and swallowed it HOOK, LINE, and SINKER. Daycd, you get the 2005 Sucker of the Year Award! Congratulations!
Yes, I agree. We need to stick together if we are to rid the Wiki site of all these undesireables. I would propose that we start by putting blocks on people that we suspect of vandalism. If in doubt, BLOCK. I think we need to block for a year or more, especially if we feel that the person will have no potential to be a bona fide contributor. Also, we need to stop being nice to these people. Just go ahead and put a block on a person if in doubt, and be as rude as possible to discourage editing. Finally, and this is the most controversial, I think we should require some sort of testing to be done to make sure that a potential candidate has at least a certain intelligence quotient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.204 (talk • contribs)
Bravo. Lets get them and thrown them in jail too. Just out of interest, if you are a serious editor, and you seem to be, why don't you start a user account rather than editing from a AOL IP? David D. (Talk) 22:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The reason I don't register, Einstein, is that it is people like you who give this site a bad name. The above commentary was meant as a sarcastic response to what I see as the "holier than though" attitude prevalent in this project. I had no idea that my "straw man proposal" would be accepted hook, line and sinker by someone so easily. You get the 2005 Sucker of the Year Award! Congratulations!
Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Zoe" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.117.10 (talk • contribs) who has also been posting as User:64.12.116.204
Mmm, you didn't recognise my sarcasm in response to your own? Oh well, but thanks for the award anyway. You seem to have a pretty bad attitude in this interaction. May be that is why you are anon posting here so you don't have to ruin your good user status? Certainly it would seem to be you that is giving wiipedia the bad name.
If you really think that your valid edits have been reverted and treated as vandalism mature discussion would be a much better way to go about resolving the issues you have with Zoe's reverts. Certainly i would back up Zoe's reverts if she is reverting an anon editor. Some anon editors may be making good edits, but many are not. Therefore, you should really thing about getting a user account. Unless, of course, you are just trying to hide something. In that case carry on. Oh by the way why don't you EVER sign your posts, it would help a lot if you really want to be taken seriously. David D.(Talk)22:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's just great that he couldn't recognize your obvious sarcasm in response to his. No wonder he's afraid of there being an IQ requirement to contribute. ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that but didn't like to point it out. I thought that might be getting a bit close to a direct insult. It's hilarious. Where do these contributors come from? David D.(Talk)23:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey David, I hope you're well. Please come and post on the SAB's talk page. I'd like some people like you to contribute in the discussion about whether or not a mention and/or a link to my rebuttal should be in the SAB's entry. Right now, unfortunately for Wikipedia and all of thinking, humankind, all we have is Dave Horn (WarriorScribe) and Mark Bilbo's input. Since they can't see past their nose on matters that need objectivity, perhaps you and even some of your other friends can help. As you probably know, I'm an honest and sincere contributor to numerous wikipedia entries (new ones and old) and I'm interested in achieving a consensus (as long as the consensus isn't Horn and Bilbo . . . please) and following the rules. So far, all they have done is sidetracked the discussion, assumed bad faith, and launched attacks at me. Quite sad for them (and for the discussion). --Jason Gastrich01:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Unfortunately for Wikipedia and all of thinking, humankind...?" That's pretty funny stuff--almost as funny as any talk from Gastrich about "objectivity" or the level or quality of his participation. Check out his contributions page. If you select 500 notations per page, you can see that they go back only to the 21st, and there was quite a bit of activity during the few days before Christmas. What kind of "objectivity" is needed to see phoniness in mere numbers as opposed to quality? Gastrich has discovered a method to up the numbers. Either the software allows that merely going to an "edit page" option and clicking "save" will tick another notch, or he simply puts in an extra space, changes a punctuation, or does something equally useless in most of the "contributions" that are then notched as soon as he clicks "save." It's also possible, given what has been said in the newsgroups and elsewhere, that Gastrich has people making "contributions" under his auspices, if you will.
Gastrich is whining because there is opposition to his use of Wikipedia as a personal soapbox and for free advertising. The section indicated is clearly intended to list "rebuttals" to the SAB, and his site, as he links it, does not link to a rebuttal. It links to a product for sale that presumes to be a rebuttal (and most of us whom have actually sampled and reviewed it know better). In other words, Gastrich is trying to use Wikipedia as a marketing tool and, specifically, to market his wares, and if he can put up the illusion that he's a "contributor" in good standing, so much the better. No one should be fooled. Gastrich isn't in this for the betterment of Wikipedia or "all of thinking, humankind." He's in it for the bucks. WarriorScribe01:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"...unfortunately for Wikipedia and all of thinking, humankind..." Really? Wow. I did not know I was that important! The fate of all humankind rests with me! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Mark K. Bilbo02:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Me, too! Bungholio! Heh, heh...that was cool...!
You both should stay off the page. Seriously. Wikipedia grows because people who are knowledgable about topics contribute to them. You have not/do not attend the Horace Mann School. We do, and we'll take care of our own page. Please leave us alone. Respectfully - HM Grade 10 students —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.76.182.20 (talk • contribs)
If you edit in a NPOV style then no one will change the edits. If you add information that can only be verified by yourselves it will probably get reverted. You are correct that Wikipedia grows because people who are knowledgable about topics contribute. Wikipedia is also only useful if the information is verifiable. David D.(Talk)23:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can YOU verify information better than we can? You apparently never went here, and unless you show up at our school and walk around on campus in your spare time, we really don't think you have any right to speak whatsoever. - HM Grade Ten students —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.76.182.20 (talk • contribs)
How can i verify? Possibly you do not understand the spirit of this term in wikipedia. Verification means there is documented evidence publically available. it does not mean personal recollection or personal experience. So if you can't find a public record of the information you wish to add do not add it. In addition there is the issue of whether the information is notable. Notablility in this respect means with respect to the history of the school. This does not include the day to day events that occur at the school. I suggest you get the school to give you editorial rights to one of the schools own web pages if that is what you wish to document. David D.(Talk)15:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, I hope you're well. Dave Horn (WarriorScribe) has bullied his way into the Hovind article and is espousing his POV, again. I tried to nPOV the paragraphs, but he just reverts them. Perhaps you can come and increase the quality of the entry. I know you have cared about this sort of thing in the past. It's a shame when people like Horn, who care very little about Wikipedia, throw their weight around and try to ruin otherwise-decent articles that others have worked hard on. --Jason Gastrich06:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fact is that I care more about Wikipedia than does Gastrich, who is trying to conceal his own POV by presuming to complain about it in others. I'm just here to keep it honest. See the talk pages for Hovind and the SAB for details. WarriorScribe06:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed with your removal of the quoted material from the postings--including it in an encyclopedia article wasn't necessary to make the point. But I still have problems with the point. Why is it that the opinion of a few unhappy Christians--well, let's face it, one unhappy Christian--so worthy of inclusion in a biographical article? Even if it was representative of any significant group of people, it's a group of people with a non-nPOV, so unless there's some sort of qualifying comment (e.g., "while others find his articles, at times, entertaining and informative."), it really shouldn't be there. WarriorScribe19:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that giving a little more info would add more balance. My main aim was to get rid of the ad hom, school yard type rhetoric. And Happy New Year to you :-) David D.(Talk)19:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's all about "balance" when it comes to maintaining a neutral POV. If just one group's opinions are noted or highlighted and the others not considered, especially in a case like that, you don't have nPOV. And I definitely agree that the specifics of the posting did not belong in the article. Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy--even Reagan and both Bushes--used coarse language now and then. We don't see World Book providing those kinds of examples...we shouldn't see it, here. Kids use Wiki as a reference. But I think that the push to include such language, even within context, exposes further the attempt at POV pushing. WarriorScribe19:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, perhaps, someone should consider composing an article on an aspect of nPOV that doesn't seem to have much consideration, i.e., that people with a vested interest in a subject or those whom are, somehow, intimately involved in a subject, should consider recusing themselves from comment on that subject. This incident is a good example. Gastrich no longer posts in Usenet, and I believe that Mark was a significant factor in that decision. Remember the incident with the atheist list? A numbered list of atheists was maintained on Mark's server, and Mark specifically denied Gastrich access to it, so Gastrich snuck around the barriers, using a proxy, and took the list, anyway. If taking something that one doesn't own or that has been forbidden or denied is theft, then Mark exposed Gastrich as a thief after this occurred. As I recall, Gastrich stopped posting in Usenet, entirely, within a couple of months of that. If Gastrich is capable of being humiliated by his behavior, that was a certain episode of that, and it's a bit much to expect that Gastrich can then post comments in an article about Mark Bilbo and maintain a neutral POV. So maybe that's something that should be explored further, though I think that the problem really lies in each of us being honest with ourselves regarding whether or not we can be thoroughly objective in some cases. WarriorScribe19:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering too. I can see his original reference above as well as my own citation. I think it was just an assumption of his behalf. David D.(Talk)23:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Attention to detail doesn't seem to be one of his strengths. Well, if you happen to see it, point it out, okay? I sure didn't intend to delete anything. Meanwhile, Mark has weighed in on this issue. WarriorScribe23:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you can seen from this page prior to Gastrich's claim that a deletion was made his orignal quote is still present. He obviously got flustered by the reverts and did not read the page for comprehension or content. Nothing new there. David D.(Talk)00:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as we can see, Gastrich is again claiming that something was deleted, and he's using that to push for "formal mediation." I don't see what he's talking about and he's being less specific this time. Do you see anything that was deleted?
I'm kinda in a movie mood, this morning, and that just reminded me of A Fish Called Wanda. Remember Jamie Lee Curtis in that, and the scene after the robbery? "Ken! Somebody just called!" Heh... WarriorScribe17:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More Humor - as we can see, Gastrich sought you out for input and didn't get the answer he wanted, so you're useless, I guess (or whatever word he used). He sought out Duncharris for input, and didn't what he wanted, and we saw the reaction to that this morning. Give him what he wants, and he'll make you an "admin." Don't give him what he wants, and the problem is you. I just find that rather amusing. WarriorScribe18:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the course of posting your comment to my talk page, you deleted a comment by Avriette. Please be careful not to delete other people's comments. Cheers! BD2412T14:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It could be a club for people who try to help those who run for Admin with less than 50 edits. We could call ourselves "The Gluttons For Punishment". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had always kept an eye on what's going on there so that you can find a solution. The most important thing is for you to be able to communicate each other so that you stop the revert war and find a good solution. It will take time for this and will depends on you. Always will be found a better solution an optimal one. It's better for you to make compromise now. I am still wathching every step as I said before on the talk page at Cabal mediation, but I let you to find your own, best, using your words solution. Bonaparte talk18:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for communicating here. I'm glad to know your are keeping an eye on our progress. David D.(Talk)
I think we have plenty of time. I don't particulary like participating in these edit wars any way. I'd rather focus on the science content. David D.(Talk)19:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
David, I accidentally reverted your most recent contribution on the entry. I was actually trying to revert 172.191.17.89's entry because it was sloppy. Sorry about that. --Jason Gastrich21:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. I had was getting confused myself. So many edits in the space of a few minutes. The only changes I intended to make were to break up the introduction into sections. David D.(Talk)21:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will read it. I am open to changing my vote but i want also want you to take these comments seriously. Please don't get stressed by this but I really think these things need to be said. David D.(Talk)23:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just did some rewriting on it to avoid copyright violations in which I don't really see. I never really copy and paste it, I just found the info on the internet and I just used it as a main reference. --Jarandawat's sup00:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lets keep this on my talk page for now. or e-mail if your prefer. You seem to have a block on what copyright violation is with respect to writing an article for wikipedia. Copy and paste is definitely copyright violation. You say that you just used the article as a source of information but that cannot be true. For example, the following sentence:
"Landry was back with the Lions as the team's quarterback coach, where in 1995 the Lions were the top offensive unit in the NFL and tutored Scott Mitchell to record setting passing numbers that season
Is identical in your article and the source article. What are the chances that you would replicate the EXACT sentence if you were writing in your own words. the best way to write an article, if you wish to avoid plagiarism is to note the facts on a piece of paper and then use those facts to write your own article. David D.(Talk)00:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I became a admin, I would had quitted anyways. I just wanted to become one before I quitted as a always just in case thing I need to have sometime for myself. Im waiting for my user page to be deleted so I can leave a long good-bye message. Thanks --Jarandawat's sup02:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC),[reply]
I'm truly sorry you feel that way. You have my e-mail if you want to talk more. Otherwise good luck with your commitments especially the GPA. You have what it takes to be a star student. Energy and ethusiasm. Look at all the subjects and try to identify the aspects that you can really relate to. Maybe, for example the physics of baseball. It will be a lot better and easier if you find it interesting. Again, good luck. David D.(Talk)02:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that things are quiet on the other front, as it were (and for the time being), I think Wiki could use some help in the biology and zoology areas. Are you already working an area? WarriorScribe17:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is my normal stamping ground. Have you heard of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology i participate there a bit. I have been very active in pages on intro biology level topics, mainly trying to get rid of the incorrect info. Where it is very weak i will do a major rewrite or reorganisation. Some of these science pages are awful. David D.(Talk)17:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah...I agree. I find that, on some, too, the info is good, but the article is just not well-written. I haven't looked yet...is there a Zoology "WikiProject?" WarriorScribe17:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saw that...nothing specific for zoology, either. I don't have the requisite numbers to start one, but it's worth a look, I think. "The more I learn about people, the better I like other animals." WarriorScribe18:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious that you have a problem with people with money and education. Leave the Horace Mann page alone. You know nothing of the school whatsoever. HM doesn't admit dirt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theblacklarl (talk • contribs)
Wow...it would never have occurred to me that someone with your education would have a problem with education (where's a "rolling-eyes emoticon" when I need one?). And last I figured, the only problem either of us have with money is that we never seem to have enough of it.
OK I'll check those out. I only looked at UT before. I did not mean to imply you are liar. I am sure these are good departments it's just that I would prefer to see that opinion coming from an independent source rather than yourself. These are standards that wikipedia must adhere to otherwise it will be viewed as an amateurish and pretty much biased (useless) source. This is why verifiability of fact as well as opinion is a priority for every sentence written. I apologise if i am being overly insistent but it is important if we want this to be a quality online resource. David D.(Talk)16:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have an "Alternate suggestion" posted on talk that seems to meet the critical editors' main objection while not compromising the academic goals of the encyclopedia. Please let me know what you think. DreamGuy00:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, put it this way... The older a dictionary you pick up, the more likely it is to define a "myth" as implying something is a fictional or discarded belief. The so-called "academic" definition is the Johnny-come-lately, or at best it is an attempted revival of a Greek usage that fell out of use around 500 BC or so. I say "attempted" revival, because while the dictionaries may have picked it up, it still hasn't caught on with the speaking public yet. I thought dictionaries were supposed to mirror actual usage, not steer it. The same goes for encyclopedias. If a mythology article that talks strictly about widely discredited beliefs, like the Greek and Norse pantheons, is somehow POV, then I guess every other encyclopedia before wikipedia came along is also POV in that regard.
My grandfather was an officer in the first US army contingent to reach Hitler's bunker in 1945 after the Soviets, and I have seen the photographic proof that it was totally filled with carvings of valkyries and Odin, etc... I'm not talking about snapshots, I'm talking about albums published by the Nazis themselves, full of pictures of the interior. With Hitler's passing, I doubt if there are even 100 people alive today who seriously worship the Norse gods or believe they are real. But if you look at the actual messages Dreamguy has been leaving elsewhere, his real argument is that we must cater to a handful of people who believe in the Norse gods today, therefore if the Norse gods are mythology, all of today's religions are also mythology, in order to be NPOV. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute nonsense, as always Codex. You never heard of the Asatru I take it. Irregardless, it is highly POV to call any cultures beliefs false, especially when you do so to try to make your own Christian religion be treated as superior. DreamGuy23:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read the article, but it doesn't say how many followers they have. Probably more people believe in flying saucers, I daresay.
I dont contribute much to Wikipedia, but I read a ridiculous amount. I've noticed that you've pointed out a couple of times gossip as opposed to encyclopedia-worthy fact and commend you. Its really important that people are always making wikipedia more reliable, shall we say "trustigious," and not People magazine. Anyways, there is a fine line between gossip and fact and you manage to get it right almost always.
Good morning! What do you suppose are the odds that Gastrich would take the bait when I made it a point to publicly number his reverts, and so he decided to either sign up at AOL (it's usually free for a time, after all, and we all get those disks in the mail), so he could anonymously edit? Or maybe he's using someone else's AOL account (present using IP 207.200.116.10), so that he can sneak in the alumni list at the LBU article without getting nailed for 3RR violations? Funny stuff. WarriorScribe07:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While copyvio is always an issue, including the complete OED entries for "Myth" and "Mythology" on Talk:Mythology would be relevant, productive, and legal, especially if you put them in blockquotes and properly cite them (see WP:CITE). Thanks. JHCC (talk)01:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree, the only part that hasn't been quoted already is made up of quotes that are already copied from other sources, and none of them are long enough to be a violation (most are too old anyway)...ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User michaelwmoss is one of Gastrich's buddies from Indiana. Did you catch that his AOL sock also decided to make an appearance? Predicted that. - WarriorScribe06:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not working, these days...on a bit of a sabbatical, and was cleaning house during the last couple of days of fun (and between edits).
But if you saw the latest article in the Google 2 group, well, let's put it this way...for someone who has zero dollars against $750 needed, and has about 12 days to put that together so he can build a house for a homeless person in Mexico, Gastrich sure spends a lot of time arguing relatively unimportant stuff in Wikipedia...don't you think? - WarriorScribe18:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: this, I think we learned, long ago, that posting without thinking is something of a Gastrich tendency. Imagine the juvenile mind that seeks out commentary on other talk pages so he can try to snipe at people. Funny stuff. Great start to the day. - WarriorScribe19:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the by, it exposes yet another attempt at deception by Gastrich. He's obviously reading the commentary (not that there was ever any doubt) and knows about Levicoff's statements, yet was still claiming that there have been no statements by any "reputable source" with respect to LBU ever being a "diploma mill." - WarriorScribe19:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Gastrich wants to try to get around the obvious, but all that does is expose an inattention to detail, since links to specific comments by Levicoff were cited in the commentary more than once. Frankly, I don't believe him...not for a second. Meanwhile, pay no attention to that whooshing sound. - WarriorScribe19:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you informed Gastrich of the existance of Inclusionists, he acted before understanding. Deletion for LBU listbcatt got an email message from Gastrich soliciting a favorable vote simply because bcatt is an inclusionist. Bcatt went there, voted delete, and told off Gastrich. -Harvestdancer22:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the votes more carefully I note that User:Brokenfrog and User:Cynical are both on the list of inclusionists and came out to vote for Gastrich's article on AfD. I think you are right, he may have e-mailed quite a few of them. Talk about not getting it. David D.(Talk)23:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Most likely delete all your comments from his talk page ;-) David D.(Talk) 23:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)". Indeed he did. And also he deleted a warning from an Admin. Tsk, tsk. Jim62sch10:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rats. Well, life is full of those little disappointments. I guess I'll just have to weather this one or...yeah, yeah...I know! I can take it out on Wiki readers and I can go through and start nominating people for deletion...let's see...what criteria should I use to look...hmmmm... - WarriorScribe05:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True...but I can't help but wonder, given all of this effort. Since it appears he's ready to go all night on this latest tirade, do you suppose he's raised that $750 he says he needs? - WarriorScribe05:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that Gastrich wants to give you grief for commenting to him on his talk page, even though the comment to which you may reply might not be specifically addressed to you. Gastrich has done that to me a couple of times today. Ah, but when it comes to Gastrich, what's one more episode of hypocrisy, eh? - WarriorScribe05:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well what can I say? How about, "Please try and avoid responding to messages that aren't addressed to you. You have an annoying habit of doing this on my talk page and elsewhere. It's not very polite." Quote from Gastrich 05:04, 23 Jan 2006David D.(Talk)15:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, another example of pure hypocrisy. This morning I'm told about a possible new sock on the LBU talk page, and he/she wrote, "you're going to look even sillier than you've been looking, lately" to Felonious Monk. Sure reads like a Gastrich comment to me! Yeesh. - WarriorScribe15:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to stick my neck out here and ask those of you who evidently have a long-running dispute with Gastrich to tone down the rhetoric. I freely admit to being an offender myself on occasion, too, so it applies to me as well. If examples of attacks are brought to my notice I will hit that new shiny "block user" button I have because, if we are absolutely honest, some of the time people are poking him with a stick to see of he bites. Great sport on Usenet, but not what Wikipedia is for. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD?13:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, although my frustrations are his recent frivalous attempts to blame others for his own behavior. He seems to not take any responsibility for his own actions, ignores all advice, and has a self serving interpretation of wikipedia rules. I will lay low and let the rest of the community take action as needed. It is clear I am too close to the issue. David D.(Talk)14:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be pushing your views on too others and are acting like a Troll here. I'm new here and attempting to edit with unbiased and facts. Don't accuse me of anything, I'm new here, and I've never met you . Calm down, and be respectful to personal attacks.
Economics41623:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you keep on accusing me, and personally attacking me, then I will simply contact an Admin and notify you because of your harassment and unfounded charges. Please control yourself. Seems that you are a troll who constantly support your "friends" on wikipedia. Also, it seems that you might be posting under various alias.
Economics41623:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care who the above user is. Let's have a discussion about his proposed changes on the article's talk page, and we can find a version that accomidates everyone. Hipocrite - «Talk»23:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't accuse if you don't have any proof, watch yourself and be respectful of others views. I checked the history, and it seems whenever someone has a conflict on that page, you, and Adrenn seem to pop up exactly at the same time. I think you two are infact the same user. I will be reporting you if you continue to vandalize my page and personally attacking me. You should really get a life, and stop accusing people who don't know anything about. Economics416 16:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC
Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to invite Dr Day as a fairminded man as well as a practicing botanist with relevant knowledge on taxonomy to give a moderating opinion on whether Kareesh is right to tag my Monospecific article for removal to Wiktionary. My view on the matter is on my talk page, but I may not be correct as I am not aware of all the philosophy around here, and to be frank find a lot of it counter-intuitive.--Uncle Davey(Talk)16:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So left justified is fine. I liked it on the right, but I never know how anything looks on anyone else's screen. Have you noticed that's you've been overtaken in the treasure hunt, by the way? - brenneman(t)(c)04:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did, but you don't make it easy to track down these flagrant fouls. I was hoping if i messed up your page you may come and blast me with some incivility ;-) You're just too damn polite. By the way if you like it on the right put it back, I thought it might have been a mistake. David D.(Talk)04:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that we need some definite authority to tell us wat is currently considered a race. I was wondering if there are some textbooks in social studies or similar fields that can help us? --BorisFromStockdale 06:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Possibly, although with the human genome diversity project i think the whole concept of race is up for debate. My feeling is that geneticists and anthropologists do not agree on this issue. David D.(Talk)06:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they do largely agree... that there's no such thing. That is, it's a social construction and not only have societies over time had highly variable "definitions" but a single society can change its definitions over time and in a fairly arbitrary manner. You know that "white" wasn't considered a singular "race" for quite some time in the US. The Irish were an out group for years and you just don't get more "white" than the Irish. <g> Mark K. Bilbo14:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the fact that the geneticists are activiely researching the differences between ethnic groups (races). I'm not sure of the current term. The problem is that 'race' is very subjective and there is no objective bench mark for the genetic diversity that would distinguish between "races". There are clearly genetic differences, but anthropologists argue not enough to use the term race. Another argument I have read from anthropologists is that all alleles are present in all populations. The majority of the differences comes down to allele frequencies being different in each population. I suspect that the HGDP will show that there are plenty of unique alleles in different populations. That's were it all starts getting very difficult and how best to use this information is clearly a difficult question. From a medical perspective there could be a lot of advantages but from a eugenic perspective it can only be a disaster knowing the differences. Its a very hard call, similar to the issues that physicists had to deal with when the potential for an atomic bomb became apparent. David D.(Talk)16:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD? 13:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
