User talk:WAS 4.250

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

On a break

Time to take a break. Wikipedia, the encyclopedia and the community, every year are better than the year before. We are now going to get fresh blood in a new revitalized arbcom, gonna hire people to raise funds in a professional manner in our new home San Francisco, gonna join with Creative Commons and the Free Software Foundation so that the next GFDL version is nothing other than the next version of the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA licence so that we are finally compatible and have an appropriate licence for wiki created work. This is a good time to take a break. WAS 4.250 16:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were I the type to think that barnstars were anything other than childish, I'd post one up here to suck up. But I don't so I'll just say take it easy mate, I'm sure you'll be back when needed. It's been good seeing there are decent editors (like you) around wikipedia in amongst all the political/POV crap that sometimes drowns out the good. A consistent voice of reason and common sense. :) NathanLee (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply

You are on a break - but you left me a message telling me where COI information is. That wasn't the point.

Telling me where the COI rules are located does not help people who can get in trouble, and aren't informed of how they can get in trouble. Its sort of as if there was a rule that you had to "stop" at corner of 5th and Park, but there was no sign on the corner, but there was a cop at the corner, ready to give you a ticket (and post that you got a ticket online) and maybe that ticket could cause you to lose your job. You are saying "they just should know" and I'm saying "they often don't". I pointed out that someone had had this happen (no sign, didn't stop, was caught and it was publicized) and then you told me that in rulebook 8430, page 43, appendix 4, there was a note that people at the corner of 5th and Park had to stop. I'm saying, "put up a sign, on every page", so that IP editors, and newbies and the very-dense can be reminded. And ps: this is a great liability shield. It can be a cheery sign, with a hand, or something that says, "hey, if you are editing about your workplace, yourself, your area of expertise, then STOP, please go read our COI page".

If you are ok with this being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit ... with rules that might cause you embarassment, job loss, etc that are tucked inside where you can't see them without rummaging", then great. Because that's how it stands. 85.5.180.9 00:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

did we adequately treat the housing boom BEFORE the sub-prime crisis?

did we adequately treat the housing boom BEFORE the sub-prime crisis? Yes. I began the article on 21 May 2005 and Frothy has made it what it is today. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We repeated warnings to people as early as 21 May 2005 : ""Let's assume for a moment that enough people get fooled, and the refinancing boom gets extended for another year. Then what? The real problem hits. Because if you think Greenspan's being cagey on refinancing, the truth he's really avoiding talking about is that we're in the midst of a huge housing bubble, on a scale only seen once before since the Depression. Worse, the inflated housing market is now in an historically unique position, as the motor of the rest of the economy. Within the next year or two, that bubble is likely to burst, and when it does, it very well may take the American economy down with it." Washington Monthly 2004 April" WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know I've been busy, I was aware of the problem but not closely following the article. I hope to do much better now that I'm not going to be an arbitrator. It looks like you did good. I did what I could locally, when I had a chance to talk to people buying property. Formulaic appraising based on comparables seems to have been involved, plus some outright fraud see [1]. Fred Bauder (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little note

		The O Star of Brilliance
		I, WilyD, hereby award this O Star to WAS 4.250 for illuminating all manner of problem about the wiki with unusual insight.

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Jimbo's page

[2] While I largely have the same questions, I wonder if Jimbo is the right person to ask, or if this should be directed to Florence and the Foundation, as they have the fiduciary responsibility here. Your thoughts? Risker (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo is the public face of Wikipedia and his response to this scandal will be front page news before this is over. He needs to know not to repeat the "I'm OK with that" error he made in the Essjay scandal. You might want to e-mail him to say so. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

his response to this scandal will be front page news before this is over prediction just came true. http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/dec/19/na-ex-wikipedia-coo-has-record/ I read that it is "Front page of the print edition."[3] I'm so glad Jimbo went from "I know nothing" to "I'll pay out of my own pocket, if the audit turns up a theft." WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To a very good approximation, Jimbo does not have free will here. His responses are predestined, due to the (tax) laws of the (legal) universe. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I just read that Goodwin said "the WMF is unable to comment any further because of continuing legal constraints" and "There are legal constraints that apply to the Board, to staff, and to anyone acting formally on the Foundation's behalf."[4] which is better than "I know nothing about it." I spotted your comment here on my way to add such a comment as an amendment to my prior comment at Jimbo's page. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

It has been proposed that WP:EPISODE be merged into WP:WAF. Your input is desired, so please comment here. Ursasapien (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lateral pass jeans and all that.

Hi. I read the citizendium article you linked me to on my talk page. I note there is a copyright notice at the bottom of that page which states the content is creative commons attribution (blah blah blah) stuff. I wonder if that is the licence that citizendium as a whole will choose... -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they just selected cc-by-sa, which is expected to be compatible with the next version of GFDL. So when the FSF releases the next GFDL (expected out in 2008), we will legally be able to copy it over so long as proper attribution is provided. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Robert David Steele

An editor has nominated Robert David Steele, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert David Steele and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Illuminati in popular culture

An editor has nominated Illuminati in popular culture, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illuminati in popular culture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [5]. --Maniwar (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

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/Episodes and characters 2/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/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside Garden (Shenyang)

Hi! I see your discussion on the AfD discussion for Riverside Garden (Shenyang). I'm not quite sure you understand what Riverside Garden is. It is a development by a private company, not a part of town. There are many such developments in China, many many in Shenzhen alone. It does not qualify as a part of town, as you suggest. Poeloq (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that it is "a development by a private company". That does not mean it is not also a part of a city. See Military Park (NCS station) and Military Park and Prudential Center. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black monday

Should we really be coining "black monday" ? Those words have hardly been used by the press yet, and we don't want Wikipedia to be the source of such a name do we ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every source I used calls it "Black Monday". Use Google news and search for "Black Monday". "Hardly been used" is inaccurate. As of right now, the term is as valid for use as the other Black Mondays. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Generation Z. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Redfarmer (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have plenty of good laws.

"I wonder how WAS 4.250 would feel if someone took a headshot picture of a security guard at the Pentagon, released it under the GFDL, then a terrorist took that image to create a fake ID, also released under the GFDL, that would then be printed and used by a suicide bomber to gain access to the Pentagon building?"[6] - quoting Greg

We have plenty of good laws. We don't need to alter copyleft copyrights for situations that existing laws already handle. Defamation using a GFDL image is already illegal under defamation laws. Creating and using GFDL images for the purpose of illegal activities is already illegal under conspiracy laws. Activities that should be illegal but are not should be handled by making them illegal, not watering down copyleft copyrighting. Remember that for every copyleft image there are hundreds of public domain images. Most US government images are public domain. Copyleft is not the problem. Copyleft is an important tool for freedom. Society is best off when it is pluralistic; containing a wide variety of institutions and social structures in a social and economic ecology that maximizes creative productivity and minimizes pointless stagnation or destructive behavior. Capitalism and socialism; proprietary intellectual property and copyleft intellectual property; secularism and religion; government (i.e. sovereign) and non-government organisations. Each thing in its place; which changes with technology and culture and circumstances. Moderation in most things most of the time. See mixed economy. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 08:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi there. Thanks for your edits and input on the Animal testing article, having a wider range of views on the article and its talk page seems to be a good thing in my opinion. Thanks for getting involved, Tim Vickers (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is nice to be appreciated, so thank you. Your work in improving wikipedia is legendary, keep it up! WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

I'll argue anything with anyone, but I'll do it civilly, in good faith and I expect the same in return. More than that, those are policies on Wikipedia. Your edit summary here [7] lacks tact and contains editorialising best saved for places where it can be stricken or retracted, per our guidance on edit summaries. We don't encourage continuing discussions in the edit summaries, and we should focus on the content, not the actions. If you want to disagree with me, I have no problem with that. If you want to characterise my actions in a venue to which I have no reply, I take exception. All the best, Hiding T 23:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People who will "argue anything with anyone" are people I wish to avoid. Please stay away from me. All the best, WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation

This is a highly disingenuous edit summary. Would you care to explain the value of your edit? How does this link help anything? The content that is there is entirely redundant to the content on the Foundation's website, and indeed the page is significantly inferior to the Foundation's website.

I would appreciate your response. In the mean time, I have removed the silly link description "includes list of employees". It's useless, profoundly silly and adds precisely nothing to the use of the article.

Best wishes, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary explained most of my edit. Do your edit summaries hit the high points or do they mention every detail? Please assume good faith. Your above comments are insulting and dismissive. If you want a conversation, be nicer. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I fail to see how my comments were insulting. The word "update" does not mean "rv edit by Sam Korn without discussion". They are two very different sentences. The answer to the text that you have pasted onto my talk page is here, which page is linked directly from the WMF homepage. As I say, the link to the Wikipedia page is redundant. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with your use of language about what I wrote; using this comment of yours for me to use your language, to talk to you about it: You said: "I fail to see how my comments were insulting." Using your insulting language I reply: "This is a highly disingenuous comment. Would you care to explain the value of your comment? How does this comment help anything? The comment is entirely redundant to other content already available, and indeed is significantly inferior. I would appreciate your response. In the mean time, I have removed your silly comment. It's useless, profoundly silly and adds precisely nothing." Feel insulted? You should. It is insulting language. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Would you care to address the point in re the article, or am I to assume you concede the point, as you have no other method than to attack my wording? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do my best to not feed the trolls. Go play with someone else. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On "thoughtcrime"

Thanks for the support. Perhaps my comment wasn't the ideal phrasing, but I think you're reading things into it that aren't really supposed to be there. One, it wasn't meant to lay down a guideline for treatment of all future editors, just making an observation about human nature that is well beyond my control. Not that my appointment should matter, but I also didn't realize it would be officially announced during this, so I wasn't thinking of the weight people might attach to such a misinterpretation.

Two, I was focused more on siding with the person (hence the modifier "clearly") than just having a viewpoint in the same general ballpark. I trust people can make those kinds of distinctions, though it would be easier without the extreme rhetoric of some of the combatants. In fact, looking at this as a binary for-or-against is part of the problem, and the serious flaws in articles on Byrne, Weiss, Overstock, and some of these stock practices reflect how much of the debate has been conducted that way. Unfortunately, hardly any of the people involved have shown the sophistication on financial matters to be able to get past this approach to a solution.

Speaking of rhetoric, isn't the Orwellian language self-fulfilling prophecy a bit? I've seen you do conscientious work, and appreciate your good advice, but we all need to be aware that we might inadvertently contribute to the problem instead of the solution. --Michael Snow (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you just said. I am doing my best. If you can fight the issue I am identifying as "thought crime" using other language, please do so. I hate fights. I would love to bow out of this one. But I felt there was a need for someone to make the point I have made. Please make the points you have expressed above to all the right people and I will feel able to leave the issue in your capable hands. Thanks for caring about wikipedia as much as you do. This is a great project that must be helped and not allowed to fail. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, please don't leave this or any issue in my hands alone. If you have to bow out of something, take whatever breather you need, but I'm still just one person who can't do everything by myself and is spread pretty thin as it is. Certainly not when dealing with deep-seated cultural conflicts, that's where hatred of fighting is needed, though often thanklessly. --Michael Snow (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well o.k. - but if you want me to use a phrase other than "thought crime" then you are gonna have to help me out. No other term seems quite right, but i'm sure there must be a better way to say it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really prefer not to be putting words in your mouth, and a suitable phrase might depend on the circumstances. A substitute might not have the same zing as thoughtcrime, which is why the temptation to resort to it is so strong and also why it should be resisted. Generally, I'd say something along these lines, that the problem shouldn't be with someone's views alone, something else must be identified as wrong as well. The behavior, the venue, the manner of expression, the timing, whatever it may be, but there has to be other evidence to point to. Feel free to remix that if it helps you express yourself. --Michael Snow (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A similar view is not by itself evidence of violation of any wikipedia policy or guideline" = "don't block/ban for thought crimes". You are right. It lacks zing. Therefore it is the choice best used in a situation where calming people down is part of the goal. Thanks for your help. I am better able to think up calming words when I am myself calm; but I can recognize calming words in any emotional state. Thanks again. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Delegable proxy

This is similar to what you proposed at User:Alice/About_Me. Please take a look and make modifications as you see fit, as we are trying to get this page into a form that will gather consensus. 71.63.91.68 (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have taken the experiment live. I encourage you to nominate a proxy and/or add template User:Sarsaparilla/Delegable proxy to your userpage in order to help build awareness. The proxy designation instructions are at Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Table. Thanks, Absidy (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

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/Mantanmoreland/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/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad

Was that really necessary? One more page to have to keep an eye on from the vandals now. And it broke a few of the sources in the main article. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 19:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no dicussion about folking the article - did a discussion occur? can you point in the direction of the discussion? --Fredrick day (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from WP:BOLD I'm assuming.. but the consensus was not to remove images from the article, which is essentially what happened, with an edit summary of altered no existing content ??

There was no prior discussion that I am aware of. I was bold. I think it is one possible way forward. I have no intention of being involved further. Really, the article is too long, and this solves two problems at once. But each to his own. Do what you think best. Good luck. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please reconsider this remark?

[8] I think you have some important and valuable ideas to share in this case, WAS 4.250. Please don't put anyone in the position of having to deprive the community of your thoughts because of this one comment. After the previous episodes that saw the evidence page locked, I have a sense there will be more of a hair trigger on the block button. Best, Risker (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concerns. That both sides in this war are lying POV sockpuppeters who can not be trusted and must be banned for this war to end is a point that really can not be made by sugar coating it. When a judge convicts someone of fraud, it is nonsense for the convict to then sue the judge for defamation. This case is about evaluating these people's credibility. Read the link and the comment and ask yourself if it is not self evidennt he LIED. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Discussion Camp

Is this still active. Should it be marked historical/inactive? Redirected? MBisanz ^talk 19:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Cage match at wikback is now serving the role that page was going to serve. Do as you think best. I created the page for someone who said on a wikipedia mail list that he wanted to give that a try but did not know how to create the project in the first place. Be bold. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WAS, I want to thank you for the work you did creating the Discussion Camp site. I'm just very sorry it didn't create much interest. Perhaps it wasn't the right time. --- Michael David (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point - Some users write manifestos about such things

This is a really interesting point. ArbCom members are theoretically liable for their remarks, and you're right that it could chill their work. Suddenly, their secrecy makes a lot of sense to me.

Your thoughts about Wikipedia's structure and policies are consistently pragmatic and illuminating. Some users write manifestos about such things. You don't happen to have one, do you? Cool Hand Luke 08:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not as such (manifestos are not pragmatic?). If you read my achieved talk pages you will find some extended commentaries about things like:

If I had started wikipedia it would have been a database of fair use quotes from reliable sources organized in an encyclopedia like structure, but I understand that I'm pretty much alone on that
Resources for understanding fair use
My comments on how I started WP:BLP due to a comment by Daniel Brandt, it was mostly written by Slim Virgin, it was accepted and approved by many others due to all the bad BLP publicity in the news, and was made a policy due to a comment by Wales on an open wikipedia mailing list asking "what changes need to be made to the guideline to make it a policy?"
other stuff

Talk:Factory farming and related articles illustrates one useful approach to wiki-battles (against Slim Virgin's animal rights group).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_System/archive_1 illustrates my successful effort at handling a problem involving LaRouche and Will Beback (aka Willmcw).

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 28#Wikia doesn't seem separate provides insight

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jimbo Wales#Outside view by User:WAS 4.250 is a section I wrote that relates to the comment I posted that brought you here.

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 30#Devil's advocate as a necessary aspect of evaluating something is where Jimbo asks me "You are here, you can advise me. What mistakes have I made lately? What would you have done differently?" and I give my honest evaluation of what he should do different.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiquality is where I respond to "This page accompanies quality.wikimedia.org as an openly editable wiki brainstorming space for existing and future quality initiatives related to Wikimedia projects."

Hope that helps. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Me: I'm an old retired guy with a background in physics and computer science, who lives in Newark NJ, has significant health problems, and would not be an admin if you paid me. I'm retired. If it feels like work, I ain't interested. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary 'rvv'

Hi WAS 4.250, just thought I'd make a quick comment about the summary you made on this edit. It wasn't vandalism, and calling it that could be a bad thing. Cheers, Localzuk^(talk) 21:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia redefining the meanings of words is a bad thing. Look up the definition of the word. Are you sure one of those meanings does not fit? In my judgement one or more meanings dictionaries say is the meaning of "vandalism" does fit. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - should have looked at the history of the user... Oh well, we all make mistakes.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Generation Z

An editor has nominated Generation Z, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Z (3rd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REMEDY

What do you think? Lawrence § t/e 06:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks very promising. I believe "neutral" should be used instead of "uninvolved" as people who have axees to grind or friends to support can be uninvolved yet inappropriate due to not being neutral. I think it may make sense to look to a jury model (with an arbcom member as judge-figure??) but I haven't thought that one through. In any case, I'm done editing it for a while. I'm going to bed now. Talk to you later, if you wish. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. The jury model, I hadn't thought of. I have an idea on how that can work out but need to think about it. My idea might be too basic to be of use. Lawrence § t/e 06:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia was never meant to be an encyclopedia

Your comment on Jimmy's talkpage:

Zenwhat, Wikipedia was born an experiment to generate content that could be improved enough to be part of the online encyclopedia "Nupedia". It has always been an encyclopedia-in-the-making. That many people find our encyclopedia-in-the-making good enough to use right now instead of waiting until we have a finished version is wonderful. That others choose to misunderstand and condemn what they do not understand is less wonderful. Gathering facts before making claims is a good thing.

That's not true, actually. See WP:FAIL#An absolute definition of Wikipedia success. This argument is a recent creation (and by recent, I mean perhaps something like the past 2 or 3 years) in order to rationalize Wikipedia failure.

In the early history, Jimmy made very hubristic remarks on the goals of the Wikipedia project. Now, he acknowledges it's in horrible condition, but has shifted his focus towards so imaginary light at the end of the tunnel, several years into the future, without any clear vision on how we get from point A to B. It's demonstrated in the quotes there, but it's actually a short list and could probably be made even better with a more in-depth look (of course, I'm not one of those crazy people who is going to spend weeks looking through all of Jimmy's mailing list remarks).

If Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia and people should not mistake it for that, stop calling it an encyclopedia. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have presented zero evidence for your position. You act like a provocateur or troll or misinformed teenager. Link to evidence or fuck off. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you ask Wikipedia Review for their assessment? They have some smart informed folk there. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACOTF (Gundagai reversion)

I have raised an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Collaborations#RfC: Should the collaboration template appear on the article page--Matilda ^talk 00:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable eating

Did you delete the article "sustainable eating"? If so, why? Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability in eating makes no sense except in as much as it refers to sustainable agriculture, so I redirected to that; which is also a far better article. Further, content that claims "sustainable eating" refers to free range is nonsense. Free range relates to animal liberation or naturalism or other things, but not to sustainability. Sustainability is about not destroying resources and free range can destroy the environment as much as any other type of agriculture. Both free range and factory farming methods can be environmentally destructive or be made not environmentally destructive depending on the details of their implementation. WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't delete an article without going through the "Article for deletion" process". Please revert the redirect, and then we can discuss it. --Phenylalanine (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected, I did not delete. May I suggest you appeal to Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture ? I will abide by their decision. WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have appealed this redirect here. --Phenylalanine (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's Page

I appreciate your response, but I would really prefer an answer from Jimbo. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 17:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talking to the Foundation

Because I don't think that Jimbo wants to talk about why I don't like mailing lists, I thought I'd let you know here. You have to use a mail client to do so. They're a nightmare to navigate. They don't show up in my contributions. They serve a purpose for small groups of people who regularly have an interest in everything that is said on them, and who habitually use other mailing lists. Keeping things on-wiki is not an unreasonable expectation. Arbitrators do it. Sysops do it. The WMF have talk pages but they are locked to the public, as is registration. The only contact details they provide are direct private contact with the office. This might have been alright when the Foundation was simply an administrative arm of the community, but now that it is taking a more autonomous active community role the community ought to have a voice there. BigBlueFish (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of January 2008 stock market volatility

An editor has nominated January 2008 stock market volatility, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2008 stock market volatility (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bakken press release copyright

Hi. You added what looks like a chunk of a press release to Bakken Formation, saying:

"... July, 2006 Press Release from the North Dakota Industrial Commission] which is part of the North Dakota State Government thus in the Public Domain"

But Copyright status of work by the U.S. government says that while work belonging to the U.S. government is in the public domain, this "only applies to the work of the federal government, not state or local governments." Facts can't be copyrighted though, so you can rewrite the paragraph.
—WWoods (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double redirects

When moving pages, as you did to Black Monday (January 2008), please remember to fix any double redirects. These can create slow, unpleasant experiences for the reader, waste server resources, and make the navigational structure of the site confusing. I've fixed all the double redirects this created, but just thought I should remind you to check for them next time. Thanks for reading. Terraxos (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Thank you. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 04:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I, Camcd93, hereby award WAS 4.250 the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar for all the help you gave me Camcd93 (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't

I was wrong. Please don't insult me like that, I have admitted I was wrong, there is nothing more I can do except apologise again. I'm sorry. Please accept my apologies Camcd93 (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

"I would like the requirement ... for accounts that are not autoconfirmed to not be able to edit BLPs. Anons can edit the talk pages. This will also help prevent edit wars on BLPs between anons that are in fact the article subject and other editors.

In my opinion, the BLP idea sounds like it might be a good idea. Off the top of my head, a way to implement this would be to make a BLP namespace, and require an editor to be autoconfirmed before being able to edit there. Which I believe I would support. (Honestly, imagine if you had to be autoconfirmed before editing any namespace but the main, wikipedia, user, and all talk spaces. The rest would seem to suggest a need for more expertise than pre-autoconfirmed users will typically have.)

Heck, imagine if they had to wait to be autoconfirmed to edit userspace. They'd still be able to edit their user talk page. Definitely deal with the drive-by problems of WP:NOT#MYSPACE, and other such concerns noted at the poll. Just a thought : ) - jc37 19:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that

Heh - "you're welcome!" --David Shankbone 21:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you'd get a laugh out of me proving that idiot wrong! We really do appreciate the hard work of people like yourself here at wikipedia. I read WR because sometimes someone points out a genuine wrong that needs fixing, but I could never edit there; the atmosphere is too poisonous. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my reverts. It was my mistake. Enigma ^message 02:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Jimbo Wales' talk page: Encryption

Hi there. I have posted a reply to a section in which you have contributed to on Jimbo Wales's talk page. Please see User talk:Jimbo Wales#board privacy resolution and encryption for the discussion. Thank you and happy editing! — E ↗^T ^C ^B 08:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Social Media Agency

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Social Media Agency, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Social Media Agency is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Social Media Agency, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol!!!!

If you could do me a favour, I'd much appreciate it.

If you could post the following to that shirt comment on WikiEN-l (if not too late):

"Ta bu shi da yu expresses his amusement and is somewhat interested in buying a shirt. He would like to add that he's interested in the creator's ideas and would like to subscribe to his newsletter."

Tbsdy lives (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the list but don't add messages there, so I passed it on to someone who does at User talk:David Gerard section "Remember your comment about "Ta bu shi da yu" and ^{[citation needed]}?". I looked up the first edit and placed my comment on the Ta bu shi da yu talk page. David either saw my comment or more likely independently looked it up and placed a similar comment at WikiEN-l, so he is the right person to add (or not add) to the thread. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dissent from Darwinism

FYI - I've reverted your recent edit to the lead to that article. It took out all kinds of critical information (like the no-so-trivial fact that it's a petition that people sign) and the result was incoherent. Raul654 (talk) 00:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oath

Thank you. Pretty painful decision I would say, but I think it best to provide room for others to be elected. Thanks for the comment anyway. Anthere (talk)

Moulton

Well, he may have misread your question. I'll give him 'till 23:59 UTC to think about it, and then I'll know if I'm done with this case or not. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Just wondering what the link on Jimbo Wales's talk page was refering too. Will you answer on my talk page. Thanks.

StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 17:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Explaning the link

WikiThanks

Thank You

StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 16:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for beating me to it in removing the second link from Moulton's page. It was an easy piece of mischief to miss unless you'd some idea of what you were looking for. . . dave souza, talk 20:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edit reverted both what you deleted and what I deleted, but was processed after your edit. I never saw that happen before. I then tried to add a subsection explaining to him that he should use email to discuss personal information and explained that people use a whole range of options from freely revealing their real name to taking great pains to cover up their identities, and at wikipedia we only post personal information that that person is currently freely sharing. He should have known better. Probably will claim he did not know better. But enough is enough. Time to move on. Thank you for helping to make wikipedia better. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honeytrap

Thanks for the disambiguation rewrite. Shows that WR isn't all bad. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is useful. Wikipedia Review is useful. To vastly different degrees and in very different ways. It's funny how extremists on both sites project the worst qualities of their site onto the other site. Wikipedia "outs" data on living people in its BLP articles and internal vandal/sock reports as a matter of policy (we are an encyclopedia) while Wikipedia Review has incorrect unsourced claims as a matter of policy (they are an opinion site). Further, bashers on both sites regularly condemn the other site and everyone on it for the actions of a few on that other site and defend their own site saying the few do not speak for or represent the rest of us. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

I'm trying to reach you privately, but your e-mail address is not set. Please send me an e-mail, (wikipedia e-mail works). --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use email. I'd rather quit wikipedia than use email. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's quite amazing. What made you decide that? In the mean time, this does reduce my options somewhat. I'll go see who else can help. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an old man in poor health and not using email is helpful in controlling my stress level. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do see. Quite. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Discussion Camp nominated for deletion

Hi there. I saw this page linked further up your talk page, saw that you had no interest in keeping it around, and so have nominated it for deletion as inactive and obsolete. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Discussion Camp. Terraxos (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing human evolution and intelligent design

You know, it's somewhat sad that human evolution article has only 45 citations, while intelligent design has over 200, and the former is not even a GA while the latter is a FA. Now, it may be true that human evolution doesn't need 200+ citations; with the right sources, only a few more could probably do -- but it still could do with a substantial expansion. Plus, finding more online sources would make it a better resource. There's too much focus on fringe articles on Wikipedia. But guess what? The people who believe in these things generally don't care about empirical evidence. Their beliefs are based on faith. Much of the heavy work in fringe topics is basically for naught, and distracts from more meaningful editing, and leads to people spending countless hours debating very minor changes to slightly make the articles fit their POVs better. It's human nature to seek conflict, I guess -- I'm as guilty as anyone. But there is a mind-boggling amount of wasted energy on Wikipedia. II | (t - c) 04:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's sad and discouraging if you approach Wikipedia with the idea that you MUST achieve certain goals. But if you only do what for you counts as fun, then it is all rewarding and no effort is wasted. How much effort is "wasted" when you do something for fun (chess, poker, TV, sex, football, etc)? WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting into edit wars and constantly pushing a POV might be fun, but does that make it good? :p I just wish more people had "fun" adding referenced content to the encyclopedia. I guess I also don't really think that spending a lot of time on topics that you really don't like e.g. intelligent design is fun for people. They do it out of a sense of duty -- they feel that they have to "right great wrongs" because religious people believe that the Earth was created 10,000 years ago. II 03:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H?N?

Hi WAS. Please don't make assumptions about everybody in a project just because of the response of one or two members! There are quite a few active members in WP:BIRD. Some of us even have interests in areas other than birds. As to whether anyone is interested in helping with the other articles—which you don't seem to think will happen—you're wrong with your initial assessment, as I hope to prove. I, for one, am interested. What would you like help with? Where can I start? Please give me some ideas as to what would be most helpful. Looking forward to hearing from you. MeegsC | Talk 17:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at User talk:MeegsC. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with some of your points (I am increasingly annoyed by drive by article taggers), I don't think that your tone on WP:BIRD's talk page was particularly helpful. There is overlap between the projects and scope for cooperation in these articles, so try work with that rather than be hostile. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to appear hostile. Sorry about that. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia

I'm unconvinced this is something I want to involve myself in (at least, at the moment), but I will offer a morcel of advice unasked for: Wikipedia editors and admins come from varying backgrounds, have varying experience and varying commands of English. Buzzwords, Jargon, Three dollar words and assumed prior knowledge aren't very helpful. I looked over the Wikiversity page, and despite being an anglophone and a fan of three dollar words, I wan't able to decode very much of what was going on there. Accessibility is about more than just wheelchair ramps, and if you hope to make any serious impact, you should keep that in mind. Cheers, WilyD 21:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars

Is there a Sisyphean Barnstar for people who are willing to keep rolling the boulder up the hill, only to have it roll back down? :) Seriously, while I remain ambivalent about the fit between Moulton's goals and Wikipedia, I respect your effort to engage him and try to make it work. MastCell ^Talk 23:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assist!

I was just coming to my page to put links instead of the removed image logos. I appreciate the help, and its nice to know that nice folk are out there to help out. I feel kinda inspired. :D - Hexhand (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey request

Hi, WAS 4.250 I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response

I appreciate your participation in the survey. Thank you.

geraldckane (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]