Thanks for your note. I'm actually mostly offline for a few days, so my lack of activity is not an indication of anything more than busy-ness. Appreciate your efforts on this.--Gregalton (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to move the guidelines thing to no avail; I got it to budge to the right a bit, but then it disintegrated and spewed it's contents all over the page. I think there's some conflicting code or something that's causing a problem, but I can't figure out what... Master of PuppetsCare to share?23:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When we get to peer review and FAC, I'm sure any of those articles would get a lot of criticism. They are all in need of major rewriting/expansion to become featured. Sarsaparilla (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. A basic problem with the article is that it has a lot of bulleted lists instead of paragraphs; those will need to be converted in order to make FA. Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Another user reported your repeated reversions of Debt-based monetary system as a 3RR violation. I have declined to block you because one of your reverts was of a bot so it was not technically a violation. Please understand, however, that this is NOT blanket permission to revert three times in each 24 hour period. You have reverted to your preferred version a number of times and it can be considered disruptive. I strongly encourage you to continue to discuss the issue on the talk page and not to revert again. Thank you. --B (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that an edit you dispute is absolutely not vandalism, as you characterised it. To describe another editor's good faith edits as vandalism is incivil and not acceptable. Please discuss disputed changed on the article's discussion page. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your note about barnstars. I'm sorry you haven't seen any. Of course, thousands of very good contributors never receive a barnstar, so you are in good company.
If you are still interested in tasks to improve Wikipedia, I could easily come up with a list, but I don't really know where your interests lie, aside from (I guess) politics. Coming up with a random list probably won't work for you. Or are you really willing to work on anything? Firsfron of Ronchester00:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, have you had a chance to peruse my response from yesterday at the article's discussion section? There are many sources describing Buddhists using drugs (in the times of yore) and I think these might have influenced the general public into this mistaken belief.
Also, you write:
And this edit seems like weasel words:
at least according to the author signed as "DJ Short", in a publication in "Cannabis Culture magazine"
I don't think you're referring to the Wikipedia's definition of weasel words. My edit was, in fact, an attempt to satisfy your critique of leaving the preceding statement as "objective", by only referred to the publication. My intent was to emphasize that this statement is of the author of the article. Feel free to delete the fragment of the sentence you cite above, if for whatever reason you find it not objective (but clearly it has nothing to do with weasel words).
Per your comments on the magazine's forum - while I admire your passion for accuracy and your will to educate them, the editor's response seems quite reasonable. After all, in many cases they are referring somebody's words (in interviews, books, etc.), and they did admit the haikus were not "real" (although you should realize, that all haikus in English are to some extent fake. There is only a traditionalized form of translation and writing them in Englih, but it is pretty far from the original Japanese versification for language reasons, and also there are so-called contemporary free-form haikus, which are close to free verse poetry. But I don't think it matters that much).
Credibility of this magazine as a source is, in my view, very limited and I would not learn haiku structure from them. I do believe, though, that if there is any magazine that can professionally write something about different kinds and strains of marijuana distributed 20 years ago, that'll probably be them. NRA publications also have limited credibility - but if I wanted to know about gun subtleties, I would assume them to be a useful source. It is their core business, after all - and while being ignorant about haikus will not take readers away from a cannabis magazine, mistakes and slips in articles on marijuana actually may. Being accurate about existence of strains is almost the only thing they really have to be truthful about (and of course you are right that they quite likely will minimize and belittle the medically proved negative effects of cannabis intake). Pundit|utter23:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see you removed the source as well. I disagree with this decision. My perception is that you took offense to their silly comments about Buddhists smoking marijuana. Still, I am not an expert and also, I don't want to start a revert war. Perhaps someone else will drop a couple of cents in. Pundit|utter23:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to mistakenly take the magazine to be scholarly. They are not scholars at all. It is, at best, a pop-cultural magazine, with particular focus on marijuana. I don't expect them to be accurate about haikus, honestly. But a versological slip is hardly a proof that they don't know about marijuana strains. By analogy - if NRA magazine published a sonnet and called it a haiku, it wouldn't make them unreliable about guns. Pundit|utter23:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cut out your RfC from the article and added it to the discussion. I cut out somebody's (yours?) template from there to add a new one - I hope it is ok, as it didn't work previously. Pundit|utter23:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I don't mind your reverts, but calling my definition of the RfC as not adhering to Neutral Point of View does not seem to be very fair. It is, however, only natural to assume that our own perception and wording are more neutral and elegant, so I'm leaving your description in the template. Pundit|utter23:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, your own opinion and the opinion of your colleague Buddhists, whom you kindly offer to consult, are not entirely falling under credible sources of information neither. However, I gave you Such, or such, or such, or such links to chew on the issue of drugs and Buddhism and to at least show you that the issue is not as obvious as you seem to believe and it is not only the magazine you criticize who claims that some time ago some Buddhists were using cannabis (although, as I said, this may be totally wrong - but the idea is out there and not only supported by this one magazine). Pundit|utter00:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to prove or disprove the use of marijuana by Buddhists. All I'm saying is that it is extremely easy to find information about Buddhists using cannabis and it does not make sense to blame one particular magazine for a cultural notion (perhaps an urban legend) that is already out there. But of course there are also many published articles and books on the subject, such as this or this or this or this or this. In spite of what your friends may say from their own experience, there are reliable sources to prove the historical use of marijuana in Buddhism. Therefore it is very premature to claim that the magazine is totally unreliable, basing on the info they give on Buddhists and marijuana. They may be wrong, but the plethora of publications gives them good reasons to support this view. Pundit|utter00:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm, as I admitted, not an expert - my only knowledge about the subject comes from google. The links I gave you above come from the first 10 results of a search in http://www.scholar.google.com which is my typical resource for more scholarly works, although you seem to disprove them as a whole. I assure you that both in martial arts or e.g. RPG edits we sometimes refer to specialized magazines. I'm not saying that Cannabis Culture is a superb source, all I'm trying to point is that if the article and its ilk are to be kept in Wikipedia, the only sources of some credibility will be like this magazine. In no way was I trying to upset you and if I did, I apologize. Pundit|utter00:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and one more clarification per FRINGE - as written before, I do not support this theory (if I did, I would make edits basing on the given academic sources in articles on Buddhism or marijuana). But even if the theory was totally out of the blue, if it is notable and widespread enough, it deserves a place in Wikipedia (which, although, I am not going to provide myself, as I do not wish to write articles about it). All I was trying to prove to you (and again, apologies, if it upset you) was that criticizing the validity of one particular pop-magazine because of their misconception that Buddhists smoke marijuana is unjust - there are too many sources on this theory to blame only Cannabis Culture, that's all. Pundit|utter00:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But you are 100% right that there are contradictory sources not only in scholar.google.com, but also in top-tier academic journals as well. All I'm saying is that a claim of historical use of marijuana in some Buddhist communities long time ago can be supported by legitimate publications (just as anarcho-capitalism in economic theory, although economy is perhaps a bit more arbitrary than history). By the way, I don't think anybody so far claimed that marijuana smoking is a widespread practice among Buddhists nowadays. Pundit|utter00:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe rule is about marginality being presented as mainstream, or at least a contesting theory. I understand why you brought it up here, although I don't share your view (but I don't want to dispute whether Buddhist monks really smoked marijuana some time in the past - I just don't care, I don't think even if they did it changes anything). NOR, on the other hand, is irrelevant in our discussion - I didn't present any of my research to support my view, and the only time you did was when you referred to your friends, but it was not a research-like statement. Per narratives in economics and your apparent interest in the subject - you may find this book interesting. Pundit|utter03:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is because I'm not proving something is true or not, I'm just proving the presence of an idea in the discourse. BTW, calling books and scholarly journals/conferences marginal is a typical POV, especially when considered the fact that you have not provided ANY (credible or not) sources to support your view. Pundit|utter03:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zenwhat and thanks for your comment. When talking about discourse I'm referring to the idea of marijuana being historically used in Buddhism (the topic of our discussion in a number of our recent post exchanges). This idea made you challenge an otherwise possibly valid source of information, although I gave you plenty of resources that support the challenged view presented in the magazine (possibly wrong, but still present in the discourse). In the same time you have not provided even a single source to support your view.
I don't mind your change of colloquial into slang, it is a good edit. But in the future please, stop using defamatory terms to describe other editor's contributions, unless you mean what you write, while assuming good faith. So far you called my edits weasel words twice (perhaps you should read the definition first), not adhering to the NPOV, promoting Fringe theories, and violating NOR rule. Once you even reverted my edit so hastily and without checking what it actually was, that seconds later you brought it back. In the same time I carefully refrained from labeling your edits as any violations of rules (Preserve information being the minor one), and I really did my best not to revert your edits based on the info from the magazine we currently discuss.
In spite of the RfC you keep editing the articles. From your user page it is clear that you made deleting Chocolate Thai article your personal goal (it is listed under "to dos"), which for a casual reader may make an impression that you decided the article has to disappear, no matter what the community's decision is and/or what are the constructive edits of other contributors - don't you think that reaching a consensus is a better way to do it, than decide ahead? The fact that you so violently reacted to the information from Cannabis Culture about Buddhist monks in the past may suggests that you took offense to the magazine (you actually called their article offensive).
At this stage I kindly request that you refrain from editing Chocolate Thai at all and I will do the same. We all have our editorial biases and it is only natural that we reinstate our positions in any discussion we already entered. Thus it may do good to Wikipedia if we both take a break from Chocolate Thai. I highly respect your other edits and contributions, and I very much appreciate your good intentions, so let's switch to something else for a while. Pundit|utter15:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the discussion on my talk page:
Your lack of sources refers to the topic of our debate for the last 10+ posts, namely "Buddhists smoking marijuana in the long past", which was your main argument against Cannabis Culture. For this I've provided reliable scholarly resources, many satisfying the verifiability criteria at Wikipedia, while you have provided only your own words and an offer to consult your friends or Buddhist Internet fora.
I personally find this argument void and aside of the crux, while there are many points you can raise against this magazine - but you can't blame me for replying to your posts and not what you could have written.. Please, refrain from any further personal attacks. Calling my arguments extremely illogical or doubting my sincerity fall within this category. While you wrote that the article in the magazine was offensive, I think it is understandable that I assumed it was you who took this offense.
Per your argumentation above - you seem to randomly cross-interpret the arguments from several different discussions on:
Buddhism and marijuana
reliability of Cannabis Culture as a general source of information (including haikus, history, etc.)
reliability of Cannabis Culture as a specific source of information on the existence of cannabis strains
etc., so I really cannot understand what your point in these particular topics is, or in general on the subject now. I do hope, however, that by looking at the history page of the article you will at least notice that you made edits and reverts AFTER the RfC was posted, so your argument about not editing being a proof of good faith is void (while the good faith, on the other hand, is present I'm sure - I'm only referring to the argumentation, and not the fact).
I don't understand your simultaneous refusal to stop editing the article and agreement to abstain from editing and wait for third parties to jump in, but I hope that you will wait for other editors to help us in this dispute. For now I think we both may use some time in other places of Wikipedia calling our attention. Let me again express my high regard of your contributions to Wikipedia, in spite of our current discord. After all, our vivid discussion proves also that we both care about standards the the quality of information, although we can disagree in details. Pundit|utter16:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my wish to report you, I'm just kindly requesting you to start to act in a civil manner.
You seem not to read my posts carefully. In no place have I written that I know little about Buddhism. I even confessed I participated in sangha meetings in Warsaw.
You have not provided even a single reliable source to prove that Buddhists in the times of your did not use marijuana, while I gave a couple to prove they actually might have. If you assume that Buddhist forum is a reliable source of information on this subject, read again the policies on verifiability.
Per your last comment - again, you have not read my post carefully. I have not altered my comment in any way. However, in the process of transferring the post from my discussion to your discussion. I started replying here, because you seem to prefer keeping the whole dialogue in one place and you keep transferring my posts here. I don't condone this practice, but in respect for your preferences I posted my reply both here and in your discussion. I mistakenly have not copied the first two paragraphs (which as you can easily checked were posted in the primary reply on my talk page). Thus, to keep it consistent, a couple of seconds later I added the missing paragraph. I honestly don't see in what way could you have thought it was my intention to "revise the comment to make it more civil", in what way you believe it was or is not civil, but again - I'm not going to allow this discussion to become personal. I respect your work. I suggest we end this discussion for now. Pundit|utter16:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info on posting the debate. And PS: above "times of your" should be written as "times of yore". I hope you understand it is a spelling mistake. Pundit|utter16:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for the clarification. It is just that I still believe 2 scholarly articles and 3 books do prove that something may be right in Buddhists' use of marijuana hundreds of years ago, while I don't think that Buddhist forum is a good place to check this information (just as, per the analogy you used, it would not be reasonable to seek historical information about Jesus at Christian forums). But nevertheless, I appreciate the fact that we have an ardent (even sometimes close to personal), factual debate, rather than a revert war and I am grateful to you for your mature approach in this respect. Pundit|utter17:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The idea to merge all the real and fictional strains into cannabis and leaving the simple redirects on the strains' pages makes sense. It would call, however, for transferring the articles into the main article so as not to leave the information out. Alternatively, a header on all strains' articles could be added informing that they are one of a bigger list and that sometimes the information is more streetwise than scholar. Pundit|utter22:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comment here: You may be interested in my rant on that talk page. I think the main problem with regard to American conservatism is the schism into paleoconservatism (which is mainly found in Europe) and neoconservatism / neoliberalism, which is also found in Europe, but has really dominated the American GOP over the last few decades. Since neoconservatism employs methods of covering-up and misinformation etcpp to an even greater degree, comparably aggressive and simultaneously more sophisticated than any other political system (compare FOX Noise), the most basic mission of Wikipedia —to provide knowledge— is inevitably opposed to their goals. An aspect of systemic bias I for one would never want to see countered. If any organisation/insitution/collective is based (if only in part) on keeping people uninformed and therefore calculabe and dirigible, it's bad. The Abrahamic religions with their average attitude towards biological evolution also come to mind (compare homeschooling). The interesting thing is that Wikipedia really seems very much inspired by the notion of European Enlightenment. Dorfklatsch 11:23, January 6, 2008
True, the phenomenon is not limited to what is being called neoconservatism. It just appears blatantly obvious there, but the Clinton administration for example was not much better. The reason I jump on neocons and other similar things (if asked, I would name e.g. Scientology, the Intelligent Design "movement", the Catholic church, Helmut Kohl, or companies like Coca Cola, Nike, and each and every single pharmaceutical company) is that I think they are all evil bastards. The reason I like Wikipedia is that it automatically counters them by providing knowledge and the empowerment of people that goes with it. OTOH, someone should have told Marx that he was indeed right, but that he should shut the hell up, so as not to spoil the whole thing... Dorfklatsch 19:49, January 6, 2008
It does, surprisingly. But so does the article on Hitler. But you're not being fair, I never said I wasn't an evil bastard :D Dorfklatsch 20:21, January 6, 2008
hi. Many thanks for your most kind words and appreciation - it is really nice to hear it after a heated debate such as ours. Unfortunately, I don't feel competent enough on the issue. I expressed my opinion in the talk page - in general the merger (or at least partial mergers here and there) some may seem like a good idea, but I think a longer debate is crucial, as otherwise a revert-war is imminent. Good luck in negotiations :) Pundit|utter00:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Heeeeeelp with WP:FRINGE and possible arbitration.
On Debt-based monetary system, which is a POV fork of fractional-reserve banking, me, EGeek, and Gregalton have tried to improve the article by at least removing stuff that violates WP:FRINGE. There is consensus that it needs to be improved. However, whenever any changes are made, Libertarians who seem to be supporters of these fringe theories revert any edits to the page which remove such material, and appeal to WP:CONSENSUS. This isn't direct vandalism -- just wikilawyering that takes advantage of the slowness and tediousness of Wikipedian bureaucracy in order to keep nonsense up. And they don't put forth any genuine arguments for why they're making such reverts other than a vague appeal to consensus. I've noted this repeatedly on the talk page.
I already posted this on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard a few days ago, in hopes it would bring outsiders to edit the page. That has not helped reached consensus and the topic has been listed for RFC in the distant past. On monetary theory articles, in general, I seem to be going around in circles, because the article on fractional-reserve banking looked good enough to be featured a while back, but now, adherents of the New World Order (conspiracy theory) and Austrian economics have put all of their silly little fringe theories back in.
I would like to either engage the users making the reverts or seek arbitration. However, the users' seem disinterested in discussing their reverts (so mediation is out of the question.). But on the other hand, given the current state of ArbCom, ArbCom will likely reject my request because they seem to want people to assume good faith even where it's clearly absurd and mediation hasn't been tried. Per WP:IAR, I'd like to just say, "To hell with these trolls," and boldly remove all of the nonsense, but then I will probably be blocked for violating 3RR since WP:IAR doesn't seem to ever be a legitimate defense on Wikipedia.
I saw this recently which made me highly skeptical of ArbCom's current ability to address WP:FRINGE violations, since admins who proactively go after such trolls cause great controversy, risking their administrative privileges from being taken away.
So, please, somebody tell me: What can I do to fix that article without having my edits reverted with the summary "omg no consensus" with no corresponding comment on the talk page, and without getting blocked for edit-warring? Zenwhat (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the long run, you can't escape community consensus. If the greater community wants something a certain way, it will eventually be that way. But a localized consensus may not match the community's desires. So if an editor or group of editors are maintaining an article to non-Wikipedia standards, then what you need to do is seek wider input. Keep in mind that common practice (that is, the defacto standard) doesn't always match policy, which means policy in such an area hasn't caught up to common practice yet. At the core of this approach is WP:IAR - the community isn't straight-jacketed by its own rules. To seek wider input, post requests for editors to come and participate on the article. In addition to occasionally asking for help here at the help desk, also try WP:CBB, WP:RFF, WP:AN, WP:RFE, WP:VPA, and WP:RFC (for articles). If you really want the community to apply the magnifying glass to the article, prepare it for featured article status. Post it at WP:GAN or WP:PR, and once it gets through peer review, nominate it at WP:FAC.
Keep a log of the perp's violations, for use in an RfC on him if it ever comes to that. You can also use that as evidence to request that the article be protected, but that step usually follows an RfC. Keep suggesting mediation, because you are open to consensus-building discussion.
To solve the merge-issue, I stepped-in and boldly renamed the page so it is more closely associated with the article it expands upon.
I hope I've been of help. If you need further assistance, continue to post requests everywhere you can think of (check WP:DIR for all the relevant departments you can find), and on my talk page.
Their removal was unintentional, infact lazy. Otherwise in order to revert a previous editor's edit I first have to meticulously copy-paste your latter edits, then open different windows and so on.
However I do not agree with the merge proposal at all. Like the Semitic religions, Indian religions are the other important polar branch of religions that arose in a particular geographical region, and which all have commonalities and similarities in belief system, philosophy and in the origins of these. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. A nice essay. I am somewhat reluctant to focus on background work at Wiki (such as introducing new wikipolitical doctrines), but I am glad that somebody does it :) Pundit|utter16:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello with Chocolate Thai I spent tremendous amount of time because I initially made a short verifiability check and decided the topic seems encyclopedic. I don't want to make the same mistake and enter a much bigger debate on philosophies, Eastern or Wikipedic and contribute as much, or more, as previously, when I can do something clearly good for Wikipedia in the same time. I appreciate your essay, but I believe that you need to make the argumentation more clear and perhaps more oriented at the doctrine rather than at critique of current policies and approaches (simply try to answer the question "what is wikiliberalism? why should people declare they support it?"). Please, keep also in mind, that no matter how persuasive you are in your essay, you will probably not persuade all editors to accept this doctrine (even if just because people are different, some e.g. don't like the word "liberal" for whatever reasons). My reasons for advising you against major changes without establishing consensus are related to the sensitive nature of topics such as religion or personal beliefs. It is extremely important not to make people upset, angry or resentful because of any edits and changes, whenever it is possible. I'm not sure if I will be heavily editing in the following days, and in any case you're on your own - I hope your edits will be successful, constructive and that they will bring you appreciation both from other editors, and from the readers. Pundit|utter23:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My talk page. The idea is to edit Wikipedia algorithmically. It would work like this:
You create a task.
You list its hierarchical importance (perhaps by a "number" or flags like "vital" or "minor")
When a task is completed (either accomplished or failed), it's crossed off, given a check or an X, and the reason why is stated.
This seems more logical than having to try to remember what you're doing, on a whole bunch of articles, all at once (that is, if you don't narrowly focus on a few articles). I've been doing this all manually on my user page with a manual to-do list. Take a look to see what I mean.
Just now, I thought about creating a "check" and "x" template to make it quicker to update my to do list. Then I thought: Why not have the entire thing just be one big template, where there is a {{task}} template (one {{task}} for each task) and the whole thing is wrapped in another template which is a script that sorts tasks by importance, date listed, whether they've been accomplished, etc.. Zenwhat (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any scripts for this. You can make tables that automatically sort; see M:Help:Sorting. You can also use AWB to process a task list, where the "tasks" are pages you want to edit. Create a page with links to all the pages you want to work on, then make a list in AWB from the links on that page. AWB will automatically load the next page on the list when you are done with the previous one. I hope this helps. The Transhumanist22:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transhumanist, I'm no expert with programming, but I'm a bad enough amateur that I think I could definitely do this myself. When and if I finish it, I'll let you know, since I think a lot of people would find such an idea useful. I somewhat assumed it would've already been done, though.
Also, thanks for the barnstar! Finally, I get one! However, I don't completely deserve it because your articles helped me a lot and my layout is mostly just a modified version from User:ArielGold.
is hereby bestowed upon Zenwhat for a sleek and informative userpage, with useful userpage design features that can be copied by others (like the to do list). The Transhumanist22:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 22:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploading Image:Wpatitsfinest.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
There are so many frustrating features to Wikipedia. I usually describe them "accommodation", "anti-elitism", and "hostility towards experts". I also think an unreasonable focus on "civility" prevents good Wikipedians from improving the quality of the encyclopedia. If you tell someone that they are "wrong" because they declared that "1+1=5" you are automatically told that you are violating WP:NPA and WP:CIV. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the History section is also in need of expansion. The whole thing is, really. I'm sure records were kept of the debates leading up to the final text. Sarsaparilla (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the deletion discussion for The End of the World (animation) every single source you cited was unreliable. Per WP:Don't template the regulars, I don't want to lecture you on basic Wikipedia guidelines because you're a veteran editor. However, it's important you realize what they mean. This kind of behavior seems to come from the Rescue Squadron often. While protecting good articles is a good thing, this policy is only makes sense if you can back it up with WP:RS and WP:V. The existence of a number of random hits on Google does not constitute WP:RS or WP:V. See WP:GOOGLE. Zenwhat (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly I would like to thankyou for not templating me :-) Anyway, yes I am fully aware of what reliable sources are, and often add them to articles. This is why I didn't add them to the article, but rather left them on the AfD for discussion. I actually meant to leave a comment not a keep, but I forgot to change it - I have now. Establishing notability for Mimes is always hard because they are very rarely covered by "traditional" media - and if they are it is usually trivial - eventhough they may infact be notable due to their impact on "web culture" - lolcats would be an example of this.
Regarding your second comment about seeing issues with how members of the Rescue squadron source articles. If you can provide examples please do so on the project's talk page - we are a newish project, so some users may not be following proper procedure - we need to nip this in the butt to prevent the project from getting a tarnished name. The proejct has done some good work and with support from the rest of the community we will continue to do so. Once again, thankyou for your comments. Fosnez (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Generally, when users post on my talk page, I copy their posts and put them along with my comments on their talk pages, so that people can see full conversations, and not just halves. It's easier to read. Admin User:East718, however, removed his own posts from his talk page after I put them there. So, below is our unaltered conversation for purposes of mediation and dispute-resolution. To the best of this editor's ability, they are unaltered, but please verify this as the author is human and may have made a mistake somewhere:
After you rejected my request for page protection, another anonymous IP removed information from the article and put a bunch of POV stuff about their methodology in the lead that I took out. Check it out
Semi prot is warranted only for vandalism or biographies which are on the receiving end of persistent violations of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, not content disputes. Cheers, east.718at 12:50, January 10, 2008
On what grounds do you claim this is a "content dispute"? The unsourced NPOV-violations in the lead were tagged with "citation needed" for over a month now and the claim about Bryan Caplan was clearly cited, but removed along with bad faith accusations of political bias. Articles relating to Austrian economicsare persistently vandalized, no different than with other topics prone to violations of WP:FRINGE, such as those on Marxism. If you don't believe me, take a look at the edit history of Debt-based monetary system and how I cried out desperately for help on WP:Help desk until User:Transhumanist fortunately stepped in to help and none of the trolls would dare edit-war with him\her because the amount of respect they have on here. Zenwhat (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's definitely not vandalism - I would qualify even egregious violations of WP:FRINGE as disruption and not vandalism. If the problem is long-term, I suggest you find an administrator who is familiar with either the subject matter or history of the page. Sorry to be of so little help, but I simply do not have the time to delve deep into the background issues. east.718at 13:07, January 10, 2008
You're an admin, so I don't mean to template you but intentionally disruptive edits are the very definition of vandalism:
"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia."
Lastly, your invocation of "long-term" vandalism seems to go against WP:SPP, since the burden of proof for page-protectionism is "severe vandalism" not "long-term" vandalism. Since the violations of WP:FRINGE here are, to use your words "egregious." Zenwhat (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I see he's made edits to other articles, so it's clear that he's intending on ignoring me.
Again, another editor: here. This is clearly not a content dispute and if you would wish to avoid a tarnished reputation as an admin I recommend you enforce Wikipedia policy or at least attempt back up your decisions with arguments instead of making hasty decisions, then subtly telling confused editors to shut up and go away.
If you ignore these comments, I shall issue an RFC on your behavior, it shall be reviewed by the community, and they shall decide the matter. I'm certain, based on the above, you probably wouldn't want that, though I admit your user contribs overall seem very, very good. It would be a shame to see what appears to be a very good editor's hard work be undermined by one poor decision. Zenwhat (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you ignore these comments, I shall issue an RFC on your behavior, it shall be reviewed by the community, and they shall decide the matter. See, when you start threatening me is when I stop caring. I encourage you to go file an RfC; I'll even certify it for you if nobody else will. east.718at 17:50, January 10, 2008
I have absolutely no clue about anything related to economics, I'm a structural engineer by trade (by the way, I was born in Los Angeles and have lived in New York City since adulthood). I do however feel for people engaging in uphill battles against cranks (and if you're on good terms with SA, then you're surely not one). Let me see if I can find a friendly admin who edits in this area for you. east.718at 20:48, January 10, 2008
I'm not sure quite how far this has escalated; but as regards the original point, the page has had only one anon vandal edit this year. That doesn't look like grounds for semi-prot to me William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read the edits and while I don't sympathize with those who don't think anything should be done, I'm not sure that it's a fact that "something must be done". If nothing is done it will be devastating for humanity, but if one is a misanthrope hoping for the destruction of huge swathes of humankind then perhaps global warming is a good thing, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few points I would clarify. In my estimation, Kyoto is really a drop in the bucket in terms of both economics and the environment. Interestingly, the total cost-benefit analysis by many economists seemed to give a net positive effect as Kyoto would have stimulated technological development in the US to offset carbon emissions, for example. In any case, macroeconomics often has non-linearity, and so I view the Bush administration's position on the matter as purely obstructionist from a political angle. The business interests of the Bush-cohorts were in status-quo energy sector that would have taken a direct hit if Kyoto would have gone into effect: a headache for them but there was no way for them to say that it would have been an overall economic problem. Be that as it may, Kyoto was irrelevant because it didn't go far enough. This was the other tack the Bush administration took (mostly in private). Basically, Kyoto was a symbolic treaty because it does nothing to decrease greenhouse emissions. Nevertheless, this is how politics happens -- through primary steps that are inconsequential leading to more major movements in the future.
The economic effects of global warming have in fact been studied fairly in-depth. Interestingly, it seems that the country that will probably be devastated the most economically by even modest rises in sea-level will be the United States. Other countries will have to deal with population dislocation (Bangladesh, for example), but the US economic infrastructure in many places is tied very close to sea level. One particularly scary thought is that the California Central Valley could easily become an inland sea in even moderately conservative estimations of sea-level rise.
Undoubtably, there are wingnuts out there on the left who have no conception of the science and don't really consider this subject as carefully as they should. One of my personal pet-peeves is the continued opposition to nuclear power by goups such as Move-On. Nuclear power is one of the proven technologies that can actually reverse carbon emissions (unlike, for example, biofuels which are arguably worse than fossil fuels). I suspect that there is a considerable contingent of them which are neo-luddites as well, hoping to dismantle the modern, technological world in order to return to a "simpler" self-subsistence lifestyle. Of course, what these radical anti-modernists don't realize is that things were pretty shitty back then with private wars, frequent famines, and disease taking the lives of most people before adulthood.
In short, I think that there is definitely enough evidence out there that it would be better in all analyses to control our effects on the environment than to simply allow our climate to turn into a runaway greenhouse effect. However, if we don't do anything, the ones to suffer will be us. The Earth will continue on fine whether we're happy or not.
How we choose to control global warming is a political question and perhaps the only place where legitimate controversy is had. One of the things emphasized in classes I teach is that global warming is truly a global problem but there isn't yet a consistent political method for dealing with global problems. It's really the first major global long-term issue the world has had to face, but it certainly won't be the last one. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, I have posted a note on the WP:ANI regarding User:karmaisking's renewed personal attacks, incivility, references to violence, etc. As for your other notes, I simply have been mostly occupied, and expect to be for a few weeks.--Gregalton (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take each individual edit that was reverted and make a new section on talk for each explaining why they must be edited that way.
If only one person is responding and has nothing new to add, go to Wikipedia:Third opinion, WP:FRINGE, or a relevant wikiproject to get someone else on your side.
As people fail to answer your talk page responses or lose interest, begin re-adding the edits one-by-one. It helps to indicate that you are doing so under the relevant talk page section.
If there is a particular POV-warrior opposing any and all edits you make, begin to document their obstruction along the lines of WP:DE or WP:TE.
If egregious POV edits are made, revert them.
Try to avoid reverting reverts. If someone reverts one of your additions, it's better to attempt to totally rewrite the offending passage with the same content reworded (keeping in mind that WP:3RR is not an entitlement). If someone reverts one of your deletions and you can see a way to rewrite the offending passage rather than removing it, do so. Sometimes it helps to just leave an offending edit for a day or two. If it is still a problem after that amount of time, revert it again. Always be extremely clear with what you are doing on the talk page.
Mediation sometimes works. Don't ever suggest it, but be open if the other party wants to try it.
As the offending POV-warrior's behavior becomes intolerable, dig out your documentation on them and file an WP:ANI. Request a topic ban or a block. Others will tell you to start a user-RfC. In my opinion, such things are a waste of time, though they can be useful if you end up in arbitration.
If all this fails, make a request for arbitration. This should be done with a specific concern regarding user conduct related to disruptive editing.
One thing I fail to do that needs to be done is maintain unflappable civility and refrain from personal attacks. That will only make your case stronger.
I've had moderate success with this technique. Redshift is an example of where it worked. Electronic voice phenomenon is an example where it has stagnated.
Take this with an appropriate grain of salt. Note that I have been subject to restrictions myself.
I just read the Austrian School article and feel that much of it should be blanked as unsupported and unverifiable original research. It is both interesting and strange how people are blocked here for supporting Wikipedia policy. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I really understand what happened there. I only skimmed through the alert briefly, but basically semi-protection is normally only granted for articles that are being attacked by anons. Full-protection may have been what you were hoping for.
I think you mean Citizendium rather than Nupedia (which not longer exists). Unfortunately, Citizendium has been plagued by pretty much the same problems as Wikipedia and, moreover, has not had the visibility that Wikipedia enjoys.
I'll let you in on a little secret: I dislike Wikipedia. I think it is a terrible idea and I really wish that it didn't exist. The idea that any idiot with a computer should be able to edit an encyclopedia is ludicrous. It has the effect of driving experts away and leaving a good deal of articles in states of worse-than-mediocrity. Nevertheless, I edit here because my students use this as a first-stop on their way to research. Like it or not, I'm here because Wikipedia is popular. If Wikipedia becomes less popular then I will leave.
I would love to request your assistance again with the article on the Dominican Day Parade. A user by the name of "UnclePaco" and I are arguing about the inclusion of information that I classified as lacking significance to the article. He has made snide remarks that can be labeled as an attack. You were very helpful with the opinion you provided on the article in the past and I thought I would request your help again. Please see the articles TALK page for more information. Many thanks!--XLR8TION (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arrgh. I'm getting sick of trying to fight back the conspiracy theorists. Will there ever be any time to add decent content, rather than paring back fringe gibberish? I'm beginning to see Science Apologist's point, and at this particular instant, on the verge of quitting.--Gregalton (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh! I encounter you twice in one day. While I was here, I just read Wikipedia:Wikiliberalism, which is not bad. :-)
I think your characterization of IAR is very intelligently done. But you might be looking way too deep. Or not deep enough. <scratches head>
Looking at your contributions in general, you seem to assume for the sake of argument that the wikipedia community exists in a vacuum, or if anywhere, that it exists in the real world. Of course it actually exists on the internet, which is a mostly virtual environment, and has somewhat different (artificial) characteristics, which have a real effect on governance.
So carrying on from that, my current favorite (and possibly for many people obscure) way to describe IAR is that it denies the necessity of requiring an extra set of rules rules for Layer 8. IAR also has several other interesting characteristics though. Short, sharp, hard rules tend to be like that.
Anyway, it seems like it would be really interesting to discuss wikipedia policy with you. Right now, I need to catch a couple of Z's at least, and I might leave you a longer message at some later time. See you later! --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to you on the village pump, on the topic of IAR. You seem to be quite intelligent. I am somewhat worried that you will end up being blinded by preconceptions. If you don't end up blinded, I think/hope that we might end up working together usefully. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. "you can probably sit down with a book and a machine and learn enough SQL over a rainy weekend to be able to get nice numbers for your spreadsheet already".
I have struggled to learn basic PHP and JavaScript. Requiring me to learn SQL is unreasonable. At best, I would end up struggling at creating scripts for macro-designing programs to inefficiently turn the data into a spreadsheet manually, but then that would take forever, Windows Vista would probably crash, and I'd probably fail. There are plenty of programmers on Wikipedia who have put effort into completely unnecessary projects, like generating articles on Wikipedia for every radio station, obscure musician, and hamlet in the world. Surely, I thought, one of them could do this?
Ah no. That was more of a suggestion. SQL is neither PHP nor Javascript. It is not intended to be fully Turing complete, it is merely a utility Language for making Structured Queries. Much much easier. :-) for your purposes you really only need to learn how to do SELECTs and joins
My offer was a different one.
You see, your knowledge of how wikipedia works still seems rather superficial. What impressed me so far was the fact that you had already been able to go so far on the information you already had.
My offer was to walk you through what I know and compare notes, as that might be really interesting.
Ill be frank: your answers since I made the offer have made me somewhat skeptical. You seemed more closed minded than I thought at first, and your statement about not being able to program well does not give me confidence in your ability with logic. :-/
Even so, the offer still stands, and if you take it up, we'll just see how far we get. :-) I might still even help out with some SQL, but we will have to see first.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)I'm also available on MSN and AIM, as well as skype and irc, which might be good for interaction. I'll send you a mail with contact details on those systems.[reply]
"Compare notes" is an expression or idiom. Basically, I've been contributing to wikipedia for a long time, and I've had mentors who were originally involved in designing wikipedia policy. Since then I've also had my own influence on how wikipedia works. A relevant skill I have is a university level training in Ethology, which I use to understand all those naked apes ;-) . (I'm also a skilled programmer, and unfortunately people have found out about that, so now I can't be lazy on wikipedia anymore :-P )
I might be able to dig up some statistics too, depending on how the conversation goes. :-)
A chat session would be enjoyable. When should we do it? Also, using Ethology to explain human behavior invokes Behaviorism, which was popularized by people like B. F. Skinner but is not widely accepted by Psychologists today. Wikipedians cannot be made good editors by putting them in a box, with a reward and the threat of punishment, for the same reason people cannot be made to be ethical simply through laws
The people in charge are themselves within that same box and, themselves -- including you -- are naked apes like us all. The failure of social engineering results from the failure to recognize the impact the society itself has on the engineers, and that their actions are just as much a result of the society, so intentions to change society by force cannot work.
Ethics -- including Wikipedian ethics -- is made up of laws, responsibilities, and duties, but the component of individual rights should not be ignored.
Also, I will discuss things on one condition: That you have the right intention of wanting the Wikipedia project to succeed and that this is not an attempt at reeducation or indoctrination. I would like for you to cite facts -- not vague invocations of authority based on science or experience, but logic based on demonstratable facts. Zenwhat (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like all sciences and philosophies, Ethology it is a useful tool (with diverse advantages and disadvantages), but it is not the only tool. As to the discussion: Possibly some amount of enculturation might occur unintentionally due to the topic at hand. :-P I can chat right now, if you like. Which chat system would you prefer? (my personal preference is skype or otherwise irc, but I'm on several networks )--Kim Bruning (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My professor, Thomas Carl Rustici (they deleted the article on him!) said that they don't exist. I forget all the arguments for this but I just remember emerging from that class as a radical free market economist. While I was taking that class, I also wrote an essay in favor of an idea that I have since found out others have independently come up with, which is called liquid democracy or delegable proxy. Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your professor is either a radical Monetarist or one of the handful of Austrians with Ph. D's, the same way there are creationists with biologist degrees and so on (I say that only with reference to Austrian economics -- Monetarism is acceptable -- wrong, but not totally off the wall). I say that because it doesn't seem to reflect New Keynesianism (commonly referred to as mainstream economics, the mainstream consensus). I only have a minimal education in economics, but I'm pretty sure I could utterly destroy your professor's assertion, "There are no monopolies." What was his argument, by the way? Do you remember? I think what he meant when he said "monopoly" was the common usage of the term as a "big, evil corporation with near-limitless power to raise prices." If so, then that makes sense. Zenwhat (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a mainstream debate over the issue of private highways. You have some radical Libertarians in the United States calling them tyranny, with nearly all Liberals and Conservatives seeing the issue as silly, which makes discussion of the political issue unnecessary. It would be like having a "support" and "oppose" section on public toilets. Sars, overall, you're a good editor but you can't see how this would come across as POV-pushing? This is especially true in Europe and in countries like Asia, South America, and Africa, the debate is non-existent. Perhaps the edit was simply a biased edit made in good faith, but nonetheless, it was unnecessary. Zenwhat (talk) 10:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a debate over public toilets, and pretty much everything else the government does as well. And the private highway debate is raging hotter as people are having to come to grips with the idea of whether they really want to lease the highway their tax dollars paid for to a company for 99 years. Some people are just fundamentally opposed to it, and worry that as consumers they're going to get ripped off. I used to be against private highways but the Dulles Greenway seems to be working pretty well so I don't have a problem with it. Sarsaparilla (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"the private highway debate is raging hotter" as you make it more notable by putting it on Wikipedia when it isn't found in mainstream sources. Zenwhat (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh give me a break, it's been on NPR and everywhere else these days because there's a lot more highway privatization going on in the U.S. then there was, say, 10-20 years ago. Indiana and other places are experimenting with it, but the politicians are being pretty cautious about going all-in. But it's clear that we need to do something because traffic in some places (e.g. northern Virginia) is a disaster. HOT lanes, one of the variants of private highways, is being talked about more than it used to, although unfortunately I'm not seeing it being put into practice very much. Sarsaparilla (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has NPR also discussed the LP's claim [7] that there is a "cult of the omnipotent state"? If so, does the mere mentioning of fringe claims in mainstream sources make them notable or non-fringe? Zenwhat (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did I make reference to that claim somewhere? I don't remember it. But I see no reason not to include a mention of radical viewpoints on Wikipedia, particularly if they have had some prominent adherents. Holocaust denial, for instance, is a fringe theory but we make mention of it on Wikipedia because there are even some heads of state who have claimed that the Holocaust never happened, or was not as bad as mainstream historical accounts claim. Similarly, there are a lot of important economists who advance fringe theories. I think in some cases it is appropriate to make a passing mention of the opposition in a main article and break out the details to a separate article, e.g. Opposition to public education in the United States. We may do that eventually with private highway, but I think that the ongoing debate on whether we should have these highways and how far privatization should go and what form it should take is central to the subject, so we may well leave it there for now. Sarsaparilla (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it's pretty implicit in what you're doing, I think. I'll let others decide if I am right. If your analogy implies that Holocaust denial is as much of a fringe theory as privatizing all roads -- I would agree. However, Holocaust denial is notable. Privatized roads is not. Zenwhat (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, originally there were a lot of private roads; they were the norm. I think it's similar to how Social Security has become so entrenched that now any proposal to completely abolish it seems fringe. But a century ago, a program like Social Security might have been viewed as unconstitutional and completely unacceptable. So, what counts as fringe changes over time. You know that old saying about the process a new idea goes through: "First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." I think highway privatization is in the second stage. Sarsaparilla (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that similar to what Milo Minderbinder did in Catch-22? "What's good for M&M Enterprises is good for the country" To some extent, it's already privatized in that the government doesn't produce those items themselves, but orders them from private suppliers. But Bryan Caplan proposes that we take things a step further and privatize not just the non-essential government services but the military, police, and courts as well. The idea is that the judicial function is already privatized to some extent, in that many contracts have arbitration provisions; the police function is already somewhat privatized, in that a lot of people/companies hire private security; and the military function has been privatized in some cases through private military companies. We just need to step it up a notch and get rid of the last vestiges of state ownership and control. Sarsaparilla (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
“
1942: first two-ply toilet paper from St. Andrew's Paper Mill in England; toilet paper becomes softer and more pliable. For most of the rest of the twentieth century, both "hard" and "soft" paper was common. Hard was cheaper, and was shiny on one side. Sometimes it had messages like "GOVERNMENT PROPERTY", "IZAL MEDICATED" or "NOW WASH YOUR HANDS PLEASE" written on each sheet near the perforation. Eventually soft paper won out as the price differential between the two papers vanished. Hard paper is seldom seen these days in UK, but is still available.
Yo, thanks for the heads-up re:arbitration. Your evidence is somewhat mistaken however; I am not now nor have I ever been an administrator, nor have I identified myself as male. Regarding this diff, I felt that there was consensus at the time to keep the first restored paragraph (as evidenced by the fact that you had to violate 3RR to remove it); that writing that Friedman and Cowen were critics was no improvement on listing them as critics; that the Caplan ref was redundant with his criticism already listed; and that the following sentence added by you:
was absolutely not from a neutral point of view, and was completely uncited, contentious material. I'm sorry for not responding fully to your concerns earlier, as I prefer to focus my efforts in areas other than edit wars. Best of luck with the arbitration request. Regards, Skomorokhincite15:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So long as we're discussing the errors in your evidence:
Your conspiracy theory that "The violations of policy above appear to be an intentional action on the part of the Mises Institute and its supporters" is absurd on an unprecedented level.
Please consider this your only warning. If you continue to make personal attacks against me, I will report you to WP:AN/I and request a block. You have zero evidence to accuse me of being a POV-pusher or a single purpose account. Clearly you have zero understanding of what either of these terms mean. Please educate yourself of their meaning before continuing. - auburnpilottalk16:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier today, I discussed policy for several hours over Skype with a respected, experienced Wikipedia editor. I wrote several pages' worth of Wikipedia philosophy and I have been polite to you every time we've spoken, including the above "Thank you" for giving me the information to correct my evidence page. Accusing someone of policy violations is not a personal attack. You are violating policy. Zenwhat (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to accuse me of violating policy, please cite the policy and applicable diffs. However, I strongly doubt Kim Bruning would agree with your assertion that I am a single purpose account or POV pusher. You've yet to even show that I have ever touched a page related to Austrian economics. I've been on Wikipedia for 1.5 years and have made over 16000 edits. Please explain to me how that makes me a WP:SPA. - auburnpilottalk16:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at this. I did that. You blocked me. So I took it to ArbCom and the policies I'm accusing you of violating are clear: A whole variety of policies stemming from you using your admin privileges on article you're involved with (but not directly) in order to push a certain point-of-view. You are a mostly single-purpose account in order to push Libertarianism, Market anarchism, and Austrian economics. This is not a personal attack. It is a policy you have violated. Zenwhat (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the history of Austrian School as linked above, and my name is not listed once as having made an edit to that page (again you have failed to provide diffs to back up your assertions). The rest is utter bull that I am no longer going to waste my time addressing. Good luck in your time at Wikipedia, but if you don't soon change your ways, it will be a very brief stay. - auburnpilottalk17:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We did touch on that situation during our discussion, but I don't think I recommended starting an arbitration case just yet, you know ;-) (the arbitration committee is the absolute last resort to use, when all else fails). I'm sure you could get some editor assistance to help you sort out the situation quite adequately. If they can't, I can take a closer look, if you like. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! We've been talking over at WT:IAR. I wanted to respond to something, but it didn't really seem to have anything to do with IAR, so I decided to post it here. • Ultimately, it seems like there are certain things you see as problems with Wikipedia, and you are suggesting changes to "correct" those problems. Your assumption seems to be that by saying Wikipedia is a "bureaucratic collective" and not a "liberal democracy", that by saying that users don't have "rights they can invoke", etc., that you're going to convince everybody that Wikipedia needs to change. If so, you will likely be very disappointed. Generally speaking, Wikipedia works quite well, despite the fact that a lot of people are convinced that it cannot possibly work. Most people are happy to accept the fact that it works over theories that it cannot work. If that doesn't align with your world-view, sorry. No doubt you have a label to apply to this reasoning as well. I doubt that will convince anyone, either. I know there are a class of people who find rejection of "conventional wisdom" like this to be insulting. If you're one of those people, I sincerely apologize. My intent is not to insult. However, I am first and foremost a realist. Wikipedia is working, so far. If you had told me five years ago that a system like Wikipedia could work, I would have never believe it. But it is working. Reality trumps all the knowledge in the world, every time. • I hope you can continue to contribute, even if the above seems alien to you. Cheers! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point is not to put forth mere "theories" in criticism of Wikipedia, but demonstratable theories backed by empirical evidence that Wikipedia is not achieving its goal (not that it can't -- just that it isn't, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing). For a good idea of the approach I take, see Thomas Henry Huxley and Agnosticism. One of the many cognitive biases of human beings is a belief in a just world. On Wikipedia, this is reflected in a naive "belief in a just policy." Regularly, it is claimed, "But Wikipedia works!" while specific examples can be used to dispute that, Wikipedia:Statistics isn't a complete collection of all statistics (and certainly there's been no actual analysis). This is disputed prematurely for a simple reason: When people decide how well Wikipedia is working based on their own subjective experience -- no matter how experienced they are -- subjective experience by itself is not proof of anything. It is easy to quickly dismiss me as some troll who got upset after his edits were overturned, but that is not the case and I do not intend to forcefully change anything around here: Only to present my views and hope that others were listen and understand. If that is not possible, then like Lao-Tze, I will vanish. After all, "most people" is an appeal to popularity and itself demonstrates how Wikipedia is a democracy. Judging how Wikipedia is working without considering what Wikipedia might be -- what greater heights of quality it might reach -- seems unfounded and quite cynical. Furthermore, I have found that many users agree with me and the idea of freedom is viral. Zenwhat (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't you tell me this sooner and why isn't it up on WP:Statistics? I can't evaluate their methoodology if they don't mention their confidence level, margin of error, precisely how the articles were randomly selected, or release their raw data so that all of those things can be replicated by somebody else. Some of the assumptions are also poor. Only counting reverts as "reverts" if it's in the edit summary is a bad assumption. I admit, though, that's a necessary assumption unless you're going to be a few hundred people to record every single revert and other stat, and so on. Anyway, I'm off to bed. I should be up in about 8 to 10 hours or so. You going to be around by then, maybe, on Skype? Zenwhat (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see it there specifically, but I'm sure it's there. Now that I actually noticed how much stuff there is on WP:Statistics, there's a lot more stuff I have to dig through before I can say anything further on the matter. Zenwhat (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that, and now that I've caught you making 3 statements based on incomplete information in a row, I'm going to be rather skeptical of anything you say in future. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So Don't Do That.
I'm not trying to be condescending, rather, you have very many good sides to you, so I'm say in the nicest possible terms, that errr... you are fucking up royally, at a pace that outstrips the communities ability to forgive, and you are rapidly outstaying your welcome within the community. (sorry to say :-/)
... and I'm trying to do so in a way that won't immediately cause you to panic and scare you off and all.
<scratches head>If I'm merely coming off as condescending, that's actually pretty decent then, though I'd love to improve further. ;-)
Anyway, the major problem is merely that you're not giving yourself the time you need to just read things through properly. :-) Either that or ignore everything and just edit, things will sort themselves out, mostly. :-P
Ok, the above does sound a lot scary in black-on-white... while it's really meant nicely, as you probably know by now. :-)
I think you have missed the point, where you said:
I've discussed this matter with a person familiar with the issue and, as it seems to me, GFDL protects against a conflict-of-interest, as Ned just said. This is true because the requirement that stuff under the GFDL also be released under the GFDL means that Jimbo can't profit from Wikipedia more than anyone else, even if he owns Wikia. That's a strong enough argument to deflect even the IRS's lawyers. This would be true even if he were to add to the main page of Wikia, "HAY GUYS LETS ALL COPE STUFFS FROM WIKIPEDIA RIGHT NOW, LOL!!" Please disregard my comments above as ignorant conspiracy theory.
The problem, as it were, would seem to be that Jimmy Wales sits on the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, and he holds an enormous amount of procedural sway in the English Wikipedia. Thus, there are places where Wikia is "advertised" (so to speak) within Wikipedia, where that would otherwise be a violation of various Wikipedia policies (such as WP:EL or WP:SPAM). Nobody seriously does anything about it because they like Jimbo, or they like Wikia, and they let these violations slip past "the rules". The fallacy of your argument, then, is exposed when another GFDL site (such as MyWikiBiz.com) is mentioned alongside those links or mentions of Wikia.com, and then either (a) the community, or even worse (b) Jimmy Wales himself deletes those mentions and punishes the contributor by blocking their access to this particular GFDL space, Wikipedia. Surely, you can understand your logical flaw now? If not, then there is an exercise for you to accomplish. Post an external link to the MyWikiBiz directory listing for Liz Cohen from the Wikipedia article about Liz Cohen. Please contact me after that link has remained in place for 30 days. Compare your results with removing any five article-space links to various Wikia pages (there are plenty to choose from) that violate external link Rule #13. Notify me after these five removed Wikia links have all stayed removed after 30 days. You may or may not edit war to achieve your results. Good luck. There will be a final exam. - John Russ Finley (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's a conflict-of-interest. Corporations are frequently prone to the kind of cronyism where they say, "ill let u be on my bord if u let me b on urs" and they end up being mismanaged. However, they tend to get away with this because it's not well-known. Being that it's an open secret that Jimmy is the CEO of both groups, any time he makes the slightest decision, there's a massive outcry. About WikiBiz, they seem more corrupt than Wikipedia.
We think you are notable, even if Wikipedia has rejected an article about you or your enterprise as being "non-notable".
It looks to me like it's a Wiki intentionally designed for spam, making it a lot different than Wikia. So, I think that's a specific exception. There are non-Wikia wikis linked on Wikipedia. There just aren't that many. See Anarchopedia, Uncyclopedia, Wikinfo, and citizendium Those are just a few I found quickly offhand. There's probably a whole lot more on List of wikis. Also, the overwhelming majority of the links to Wikia are on user pages that he didn't put there. Zenwhat (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, I like to keep discussions in one place. I'll watch your page. How is MyWikiBiz "corrupt"? That is an inflammatory term, you know. I'm not sure how you define "spam", but there is no reason to believe that the article about Liz Cohen is being "spammed" by having a link to a page that she has authorized at a site like mywikibiz.com/Liz_Cohen. Would you contend that MySpace is a site "intentionally designed for spam"? Liz Cohen also has a page at MySpace, and that gets an external link. Plenty of other Wikipedia links to MySpace, you know. How exactly is MyWikiBiz different than MySpace -- I mean, other than the fact that much of MyWikiBiz is GFDL licensed, it's in MediaWiki format, and editors may keep 100% of their Google AdSense revenue... all of which are not the case for MySpace.com?
I am getting the feeling that you are not making very much effort to think through this matter and to understand the facts. For example, Jimmy Wales is the CEO of neither Wikia (that would be Gil Penchina) nor of Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation (that would be Executive Director Sue Gardner, if you were to take the closest parallel title to CEO). Do you have any experience with corporate governance and/or conflict of interest on Boards of non-profits? I'm thinking you don't. No offense, honestly. I just don't want to have a high-level debate with someone who isn't going to understand or have the necessary background to engage in a like-minded discussion. - John Russ Finley (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't. Also, see this. Lastly, my father worked for a corrupt charity once. They were able to succeed because their donators didn't demand strong oversight and neither did the board setup to oversee the organization's operations. Zenwhat (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That Signpost article tells us exactly what I'm emphasizing. It was a gross conflict of interest for Jimmy Wales to block indefinitely MyWikiBiz, when his own company was (and continues) profiting from Wikipedia in a similar way. - John Russ Finley (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
