User talk:WAS 4.250/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

1. 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
2. Resources for understanding fair use
3. 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?"
4. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

WP:REMEDY

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sustainable eating

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Your note

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

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for that

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

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)

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

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

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 ↗^TCB 08:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 ?". 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)

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)

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)

Meta

Just wanting to confirm that this was indeed you. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. Yes, that was me. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much. Daniel (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Honeytrap

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

Wikipedia:Discussion Camp

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for the response

I appreciate your participation in the survey. Thank you.

Thanks for your response. I have copied and deleted from this page, as to not bias future respondents. Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions

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

Excellent. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Agribusiness

I have removed your addition again. Please read the article again and see what it topic is and why your material is completely unrelated to the subject. Your lengthy addition about how to run a large scale farm is not about seed companies, fertilizer companies, co-ops, or processors - which are called "agribusiness". Perhaps look at the corporate farming, farm or other articles. Perhaps Intensive farming is the best fit. To expand the agribusiness article, I would expect to see discussion of major companies or industries like Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, DuPont to name a few major players and of concepts like hybrid seed, pesticide and herbicide resistant GM seed, commodity and futures markets, farm finance, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Per your suggestion I will move it to Intensive farming. I don't care where it goes; but it belongs someplace in wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

NLP

I am proposing deletion of the entire set of articles on Neurolinguistic programming. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuro-linguistic programming. NLP is an extraordinary pseudoscience that is so successful at disguising itself as real science that it had many people fooled for a long time. I'm amazed this has gone on for so long but enough is enough. I would appreciate any help on this as there is bound to be a bitter fight - there are a number of commercial interests involved and there is evidence of some inside support in Wikipedia itself. I have a separate file of information if you are interested, but for obvious reasons that cannot go on-wiki. Best. Peter Damian (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia Review, so I am aware of the claims made by both sides. But I simply do not know enough about the subject to know which side is right. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there has been anything about NLP on WR, has there? Peter Damian (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

On WR it is said that one of the arbs is pushing it and that they make their living from it hence they have a WP:COI issue. I don't know if those claims are true or not. Do a site search at WR and you can find extensive talk about it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I understand you. I don't know whether those claims are true either. That is irrelevant, however, to the problem of this set of articles. The problem as I see it is that very few WP editors have the right academic background (i.e. neurology or linguistics) to challenge this kind of stuff. I am going to start with the Rational scepticism project. If you have any tips on the process aspect, would be grateful for help. Peter Damian (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Find the worst article and nominate it for deletion using reliable sources to back up claims of non-notability and/or unscientificness. Repeat every week or so. Non-notable articles will be deleted. Nonscientific claims will be rendered NPOV by noting in the article that they are non-scientific claims. I like learning new things. If you provide me with such sources, I will be happy to read them and tell you what I think. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(<---)We are starting with As-if (NLP). This is classic pseudoscience - connect the subject to some unrelated subject that is academically sound (well almost - Vaihinger's work is old and generally discredited) in a way that convinces the less well-read that the pseudoscience is academically respectable. It is also blatant promotion.

The lady, an alcoholic, contacted the speaker some time later saying I think that is the most beautiful question in the world, later admitting she had in fact been intending suicide beforehand due to her alcoholism but instead now had not been able to stop thinking about this question.

Thus NLP is a miracle cure for both alcoholism and suicidal depression. It almost convinced me for a second, I admit. Peter Damian (talk)

If that were a valid article, what would be in it that is not in it now? If it were improved to have that, how would you feel about that? WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Very funny! Peter Damian (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] If the earth were flat, what would we put in the Flat Earth article? Peter Damian (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

NLP: Trying again

Articles for deletion: NLP Modeling

I didnt see the discussion on your talk, and reading it now, I dont see much advice there. I did scan WR after my closure to see if I was still alive, and yes I did see lots of reasonable advice there - specifically the path that has now been taken. I was a bit surprised that Peter Damian decided to tackle Afd within 24hrs, and it does feel to me like he was thumbing his nose at everything by doing it so quickly. No need to worry, I didnt take that personally - I quickly commented to ensure that nobody decided to sink it simply because the admin outcome from the last AFD should be taken as gospel. More power to him for his boldness, as he certainly found a suitable candidate - it would take a hey! (or maybe an oi!?) to save this one. I see the path being taken as a great way to pick off a couple, but as the entire set arnt being discussed at once on a talk page, people will start to get annoyed at this approach. Just my weary opinion. Signing off. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"it does feel to me like he was thumbing his nose at everything by doing it so quickly." IS taking it too personal, whether you know it or not. Relax. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that, isn't it?

Coming at it with no prior involvement, I'm sure I haven't followed every aspect, but I gather there's a substantial background of conflict underlying this, not just a disagreement with one person. By personalizing it about Cary this way, is that presenting a balanced overview, or is it the same kind of one-sidedness you were complaining about? Or is the reason you're approaching me particularly that Cary works for the Wikimedia Foundation, and this is an appeal of sorts to a higher authority?

If it's limited to an official capacity, that's easy enough, although Cary is part of the community as well and can express personal views the same as any other contributor. Anyway, from what I have seen, Cary stated at one point that whatever anyone else may have said, he gave no "foundation directive" to remove any links. Like I said, I haven't reviewed every step that's been taken, but that's a position I would agree with at this point. So I think that answers your first two questions. Beyond that to the idea of sorting things out, I'm willing to talk to anyone that's interested in seeking a resolution, although I can hardly promise success where so many have struggled before me. --Michael Snow (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that Cary might be acting as if BADSITES were a policy. His behavior in this case and in the Durova case make me concerned. Not being clear about what actions he takes as a Foundation official and what actions he takes outside that role is another concern. As he acts though emails and such (back channels) I don't know if my concerns are warranted or not. This BADSITES waring really needs to be put to rest. So I contacted you out out of those concerns.

Now the problem with Moulton and his obviously disingenuous questions is another matter. That is part of his style as an educator - asking questions he knows the answer to. His so called "outing" is in dispute. People can falsely claim outing as a tactic. Moulton claims he has not knowingly broke rules. Maybe so. Maybe not. I don't know. I do know he was treated unjustly and responds to things like that with creativity and persistence. My role here is to try to direct that energy in a positive direction. I think I am succeeding in that. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

BLP, FM, Jimbo, Moulton Are BLPs more important than the cabal or not? WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What's this about "the cabal"? In the context of the link, this looks very much like the sort of stereotyping that was considered uncivil in a recent RfC related to the subject, and I must ask you to retract that remark. Your statement about BLPs is also odd, are you suggesting that novel ideas of "journalistic ethics" are to override Wikipedia policies? . . dave souza, talk 19:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about BADSITES you are talking about; and I'm still not sure why you keep mentioning BADSITES at all. If you honestly are "concerned" about my "behavior", have the decency to pick up the phone and and call or email someone who can address it, my boss, Sue, the chair, Michael Snow--like normal people do with any employee of any organization. You can even create a gmail account and send it anonymously. This, however, appears to be nothing more than an excuse to foster more drama; to humiliate me, because as you are aware, all of this will be discussed on Wikipedia Review, and no doubt, other websites. But of course, that's not your problem, is it? This is the most convenient forum for you; and damn anyone else. Bastique ^demandez 20:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

WAS, please follow Dave's advice and also read WP:CIVIL. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

For Pete's sakes, WAS, could you please just leave Cary be? Yes, he happens to work for the foundation, but he got that job from being a long-time contributor to Wikimedia projects (especially commons). He also happens to be a friend of mine, and while even I have occasionally suffered some confusion over when he's working and when he's just chatting, I'm absolutely certain that he isn't confused about it (in fact he finds it confusing that other people get confused). Please just ease up on him a bit and give him a few days break from this... you (and Moulton) can really tire a guy out sometimes, even if you don't mean to. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 21:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(after ec) I'll repeat Jim's plea without the "plea" part. WAS, you've been a contributor of this project for some time, but if you don't cease with those snide "cabal" comments and thinly veiled attacks on Bastique, I'll be forced to block you for disruption and NPA violations. Bastique has more important things to do than have to watch your contribs for character assassination so he can defend himself, and I will free him up if you won't. If I am being at all unclear, let me know and I will cheerfully clarify to the best of my ability. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If things were not clear about what actions are in an official capacity, I would think that Cary's subsequent statement should have cleared up that question. I'm not sure what else is giving rise to your concerns, or qualifies as "acting as if BADSITES were a policy." I'd be interested to know more specifically what the issue is, and I'm afraid that vague suspicions about back channels aren't a whole lot for me to go on. And what does the "Durova case" have to do with this situation? I understood this to be an outgrowth of some long-running disputes touching on intelligent design, Wikipedia Review, and various personalities involved in those conflicts. A small portion of that is reflected in your link to Moulton's blog post, although why that prompts your ensuing question is not easy for me to follow. --Michael Snow (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Raw foodism

For your information, the Wranjeck piece that you added to the "Raw foodism" article has been deleted by User talk:Loki0115. --Phenylalanine (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:No original research#Clarifications needed

I would like to bring to your attention this discussion. Cheers. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the new changes

I took a look at the information you mentioned on Jimbo's talkpage and I'm impressed by this and this.

My father used to work for a corrupt charity (which I don't want to name, for obvious legal reasons), where money was misallocated. It was an autism charity and very little of their revenue went to actual autism research. Most of it went to salaries and the head of the organization made six figures. In one case, they decided to change everybody's job description (there were only about a handful of employees) to "director", essentially taking every person's job description and adding the new label. They then used this change as a justification to give themselves all huge raises!

So, I know how some NPOs can work. The main reason this organization was the way that it was, was because the board which oversaw the management didn't know or care, and the donators themselves didn't mind sending money to an autism charity without considering the possibility that it wasn't being used properly. People tend to falsely assume that charities are trustworthy, so this corrupt organization made millions each year. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Transparency is an important part of ethical mangement. Perhaps you would like to be a part of WikiVersity's Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia learning resource project. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you'd notice from my contribs list, I am an extremely lazy person. I prefer to briefly provide my opinion (i.e. "strong delete"), engage in irrelevant chatter, and delete stuff that's obvious junk than to take the time and effort to debate extensively or contribute new content.

I am also (probably) going to be joining the military soon, at some point, so I might not even be available.

All I would add to the discussion on ethics is that true ethics is rooted in three things:

• Wise discernment (alternatively, "intelligent observation")
• Non-attachment, to one's own opinions, others' opinions, particular ways of doing things, one's own personal gain, etc..
• Reciprocity, the golden rule, treating others the way you'd like to be treated.

All unethical thoughts, words, and behaviors are rooted in:

• Ignorance
• Attachment
• Aversion

Not much more can be said about it than that, other than to elaborate on those basic ideas. You also need to distinguish conventional ethical standards ("Don't edit war") from the underlying values ("Wikipedia is an encyclopedia") which might override particular rules, under specific contexts. Ethics is defined both by specific rules, but also by transcendent values which, when appropriately generalized, are usually but not always in accordance with the ethical conventions. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, well I'm lazier than you! Please click this link http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia&action=edit&section=new and copy your above post there. Thanks! WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. With the added depth and context, I thought it made a good learning resource, so I copied it to [9]. How do you feel about me saying there that it was from Wikipedia user Zenwhat, adding a link to this conversation, or replacing your IP# in the signature? By the way you can create an account with your name Zenwhat at all Wikimedia sites all at once with a recent tool they created, I used it when they announced it. I forget what its called tho. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:No original research#Proposed text addition to the policy

Would you care to comment on this proposal? Thank you. --Phenylalanine (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi WAS 4.250, it seems that everyone is against the proposal. Perhaps, I have not eloquently explained the rationale for this change, or perhaps the proposal is not clear. One editor even suggested that "material will be relevant to an aspect of the subject and never mention the subjects name as such"... I would hate to see this proposal rejected out of hand. What do think? Thank you. --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

People are reluctant to add more policy content without some crisis showing the need for it. "Policy-bloat" they call it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity and email

The email requirement has been proposed (Wikiversity:Scholarly ethics) for participants who want to edit outside of the restrictions of NPOV. There is no need to leave Wikiversity if you do not have email. I really appreciate your work at Wikiversity and hope you will continue to participate there. --JWSurf (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope that turns out to be the consensus opinion. I will wait a bit to make sure it is. Thank you. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I can understand that you might want to take a break...I'd like to give you a pat on the back for stepping between Moulton and Salmon...if you ever felt like you had taken on a thankless task I'll now say "thank you". The problem with waiting for consensus at Wikiversity is that the community is tiny and it can take years to reach consensus on some matters. The only reason I proposed the email "requirement" was that sometimes people create an account, post interesting content, then drift away from the wiki and cannot be contacted. Anyhow, I wanted to ask you this: is it your intention to edit outside of the restrictions of the Wikimedia NPOV guidelines? I have not read most of your contributions at Wikiversity (this is no reflection on you, the same is true of everyone...I'm a slow reader and I just cannot keep up) but my guess is that you are interested in making an NPOV presentation of the facts. If so, then there is not even a hint of a suggestion in proposed Wikiversity policy that you need an email address. Let me try to be clear: if you state on your user page, "I'm doing some research at Wikiversity that takes me outside of the NPOV restrictions" then it is a good idea to have an email address. I see no indication (of course, I could have missed it) that you intend to work outside of the NPOV restrictions on editing. So as far as I can tell, you should just ignore all this stuff about email. Do you understand what I am saying? So please come back when you have refreshed yourself. Happy labor day! --JWSurf (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have no intention of adding material that is not NPOV. In fact it is my standing up for NPOV against Moulton that has caused him to attack me and begin what might prove to be a short lived attack against me or else a long drawn out campaign. If he intends his attack to be part of a long drawn out campaign; then after asserting the project is a research project, and asserting that the proposal is a policy, and asserting that I need email due to non-NPOV activity, then his next step would be to engage in an endless fight trying to portray my behavior at WikiVersity as non-NPOV. I have no intention of engaging with Moulton in what appears to me to be his latest attempt at creating drama. I will not partake in the scenario I just outlined. Claiming my activity at WikiVersity is NPOV is certainly true, but if what I suspect is true; then it would simply play into Moulton's latest attempt to create drama, and I will not be a party to that. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It was and is my intention that the Ethics project be a NPOV learning project, made NPOV by allowing all sides to be told. I object to it being turned into a "research" project that allows POV pushing. All contested POV that causes edit warring should be contained in separately authored pages and second all claims should be backed by adequate sources and third, balanced by any other point of view with adequate sources. Presenting all POVs that can be backed up by sources that support that POV is what passes for NPOV at WikiPedia and I don't see why that would not be NPOV for WikiVersity as well. Again, I highly object to the turning of the ethics project from a NPOV learning project into a POV research project. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We are in strange new territory here, so I think we need to go slowly. I think Salmon showed up with the intention of disrupting the project. He strikes me as an experienced troll, possibly the same one who previously provoked Moulton into a block. I think I agree with you about NPOV and the nature of the ethics project. The whole ethics project could strive to reach an NPOV conclusion. In my view, the ethics project could contain individual pages that are edited outside of the WMF NPOV guidelines. I thought that was what was happening when Salmon was making a subpage that had "his" version of events and where other points of view were not welcome. "all claims should be backed by adequate sources" <-- no argument with that (see Wikiversity:Reliable sources). The are NO EXCEPTION to the need to cite reliable sources.

"standing up for NPOV against Moulton" <-- well, I'm lost here. can you explain what you mean? I've tried talking to Moulton for a long time. It seems that he is mainly mad because he was not satisfied with your answers to some questions he was trying to ask you, so I think further dialog would be useful. Maybe I could mediate/moderate if feelings are running too hot right now.--JWSurf (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(<---) Yes, we agree. As for "standing up for NPOV against Moulton"; well, that's probably not the best summary. What I have in mind is the following. Moulton's opinion and mine disagree about what the objective evidence shows the petition says, what its significance is, what his friend's beliefs are, whether he is creating drama over it, whether creating drama over it is ethical, and whether removing access to WikiVersity resources (blocking, banning, etc) is ethical. In particular , he called on me to resign from the ethical project when I said he and Salmon should not edit each other's talk pages until the end of September. Since then, he has been trying to find a way to create drama with regard to me, possibly in an attempt to drive me out. He will have succeeded at that if he gets people to believe that the project is a research project and no one should be a part of it unless they enable email. I reject both claims, but I will not be a party to creating drama over it. The matter should be resolved by long standing WikiVersity participants in a non-drama type way. I prefer to stay away until the matter is resolved. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You wrote, "Carry out practical objective evaluation of ethical management of the English language Wikipedia". <-- that sounds like research to me. I do not understand your objection to using the term "research" within the ethics project. I have a flexible view of the boundary between research and learning projects. If Moulton keeps pressing on email, ignore it. There is a proposal that participants who work outside of NPOV activate the email system, but that is only a proposal and you've made clear that you want to work within NPOV guidelines. Moulton told me that he really does not care if you use email. He has other concerns that I do not really understand. It is a wiki, so I don't understand the "you're fired" stuff...I suggest you just ignore that. I think dialog is the way ahead and I've had many long discussions with Moulton about putting a limit on the drama. Salmon seems to have gone away, so maybe things will be peaceful and productive now. "The matter should be resolved by long standing WikiVersity participants" <-- I'm not sure that there is any hope of the community making a decision about the email proposal until the community has a track record of problems with people working outside of NPOV. The Wikipedia ethics project is really the first research-related project at Wikiversity. It's up to us to discover what works. Wikiversity is small and new. You have as much say there as anyone else. --JWSurf (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My sole objection to the use of the term "research" is that there are claims that it results in the addition of terms of service criteria such as mandatory email usage that I find unwarranted. Good and proper volunteer efforts to create learning resources should be about proper sourcing and such, not email.

I will accept your evaluation that I should "ignore it".

Thank you for your efforts to resolve my concerns.

I now feel I can return to WikiVersity without being a focus of pointless drama. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You are a good man

My hat is off to you, sir. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so very much. You are a pleasure to work with. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Pro se legal representation in the United States

Hi WAS 4.250. I've recently had the above-linked article brought to my attention because of the activities of a new editor, User:Kay Sieverding. She has dramatically expanded the original Pro se article to the point that other editors felt it was necessary to move it to the new title (the original title is a redirect now) and to split off parts of her work into separate articles. She's continued to expand it despite the objections of other editors. It is pretty clear that her objective is to develop the article into a major resource for American readers who wish to pursue the option of self-representation, which is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. It may, however, be something within the scope of one of your other projects, Wikiversity.

If you have a chance, perhaps you might be kind enough to take a look at the article and some of the commentary to get a feel for whether or not this might be something that would fit into the objectives at Wikiversity. I'd appreciate your feedback, as I am still getting a feel for what would and would not fit into that project. I've mentioned this possibility to Kay as well, I hope that's okay. Best, Risker (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Esfahan

If you are going to raise arguments, and remove content with four sources that conforms to the way virtually other city articles are written, please use policy and guideline and stick around to discuss. And if you are going to keep an eye on my talk page, be careful it doesn't veer into harassment. --David Shankbone 07:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop harrassing me David. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

POV editors are back on Lurita Doan article

WAS, I noticed some time ago that you dropped by the talk:Lurita Doan page and made a few insightful comments about POV concerns there. I (along with others) tried to make some NPOV edits to reflect what was reported and verifiable in the mainstream media. However, there is at least one editor that seems interested in a re-write that seeks to minimize her tenure as GSA chief and the Hatch Act troubles that dogged her (as with many other Bush appointees).

I was hopeful that you might spend some time, in the near future, on a return-trip to the Lurita Doan article and have a look around. Thanks.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

For now, keep talking and compromising with AbejaAbajo. I think you two will work out an adequate solution. If not, please return here with a specific issue you wish me to voice my opinion on. Thank you for helping to keep Wikipedia NPOV. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Dear Mr. Was, Things have moved along in our discussion and I was wondering if you could give me an idea of how I'm doing. Would be very interested in your thoughts. Kind Regards.--Happysomeone (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    • A quick review of some of your recent edits shows no problems that I can see. You appear to be doing fine. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Village_pump#erotic_media

Re: commons:Commons:Village_pump#erotic_media - Hi there, some people have responded to your post on commons and are wondering what the post was about or what type of point you were trying to make. Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Icelandic crisis.

You removed a section on Icelandic financial crisis page regarding eBay. I am not against what you did but trying to point out how rude it was. You did not bother to check the talk page here. I had left discuss link below the section heading. You ignored. While deleting the text you would have seen a hidden comment. You ignored that too. I had left 3 hints for someone trying to do this - and you successfully ignored all 3. This usually triggers an edit war. This hopeless attitude and enforcing personal will without fruitful discussion creates problem. Play safe. --gppande «talk» 09:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I read the talk page and read the referenced source and googled for other sources. It is clearly a joke and was reported for its pure entertainment value. It has no place in that article. None at all. Anyone with good sense could see that. We are not required to suspend editorial judgement and take a vote. If people insist on vandalizing serious articles with jokes, they should be banned. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Flu discussion

Hi WAS. Happy we can work together here.

I think it will be more productive of us to chat screen to screen. Do you have Skype or MSN? (My contact is zayzayem on Skype) Or do you have another IM/ICQ software you can suggest for me to contact you with.

I feel the Talk page discussion is getting quickly sidelined, also the Talk page is already over crowded. Thank you.

I currently have some time and useful resources in my new job. But time will disappear quickly as they start allocating me projects.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't interact with Wikimedia contacts except at Wikimedia wiki sites. You seem to be on the right track with regard to your recent efforts here at Wikipedia. Please continue. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If you like please take a look at My current working of the "History" of influenza pandemics. This section will replace three sections in the current article:

• Notable influenza pandemics
• H5N1
• Other pandemic threat subtypes

Some things I am having difficulty making match up to their marked citations in the present article (partly due to lack of access). If you could confirm/help locate citations for some of the {{cn}} tags it would be great. Also if you think there is any significant historical details missing please let me know.

I would hope to be able to replace those three sections over next weekend. Please bear in mind that some information may be temporarily lost, but some of the content that will be lost will be recovered by placing it in appropriate sections. If you would like point out specific material you feel would absolutely need to be recovered from those sections. Please discuss that with me.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Life hates me again. Taking a break. --ZayZayEM (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Flu facts

I altered the meaning because the previous version, aside from being grammatically awful, was using pov words to communicate that bird flu is "that is the worst pandemic threat". Even though its a dab page, and doesn't need citation, its best to avoid words that aren't objectively neutral. I thought my version said the same thing but lessened the urgency of the statement. Do you understand my edit now? I would like to work with you to find a version that avoids the aforementioned issues. Let me know. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted a compromise here. Hopefully it will be received. H5N1 is generally regarded as the presently greatest looming pandemic threat by most (but not all) opinion leaders. Historic data beyond the last 150 years is lacking to make widespread statements into eternity. Also data as to what actually consititutes a predictable pandemic threat (or if it is possible to predict the pandemic propensity of a subtype) is to scant to put it beyond "perceived"--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I accept your compromise. (But someone may wish to rethink your capitalization.) WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've further tweaked it. ZayZayEm makes good points here and in the edit summary. I am not arguing about the significance of the threat (I work in disaster management, after all); I was simply concerned that wording used made it seemed like the flue was already in the house with a butcher knife. It sounded a bit panicky, and that didn't seem - to me - to be as neutral as we could have aimed at. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Say whaaa?

Your comment here was - if not beyond the pale - was certainly halfway through it. Consider that if you are being consistently reverted, you need to redirect your efforts in finding a consensus for inclusion of your preferred version. Currently, you are overruled, 2:1. Take a break with tea, cookies and plenty of nap-time, and refocus your efforts on being less confrontational. If I ever see an edit like that roll off your keyboard like that again, you will be blocked for civility violations. I hope I am being in no way unclear in this warning, because it is made in earnest. You are a pretty good editor; do not fuck it all up now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, those are some seriously rude and patronizing remarks. Please look to your own civility, Arcayne. As for "you will be blocked"—are you trying to give the impression you're an admin ? Bishonen | talk 08:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC).

Hi WAS I think you misread what I was refering to when I said "They are synomous". See Talk: Bird flu--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A RfC you participated in is being discussed

• Wikipedia_talk:Television_episodes#Laws_are_like_sausages Ikip (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

It looks like the corruption of IDCab has now permeated Wikiversity. As I understand it, the script is to foment a backlash and then use that a pretext to shut down Wikiversity. —Moulton 04:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.247.116 (talk)

It looks like your imagination is carrying you away. As I understand it, most people are doing the best they know how; but sometimes people provoke them into unbecoming conduct. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Financial Crisis talk

Hey. I hope I didn't sound condescending in my response; I didn't realize how long you've been around. Thank you for the reply. I am really grateful for you expressing support for fixing this article.

FWIW, I am very sympathetic to your point of view on the subject, and generally agree. It was just a battle that I didn't want to fight on the article's talk page. I'm already dreading the response to my edits, as the history shows not just edit warring, but lots of recent copyediting of the section. This particular talking point is a religious issue to a lot of people, and I'm not sure how much I can handle when the disputes start.

Again, thanks. demonburrito (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There may be a slight misunderstanding here... I've been around, on and off, since August 2005. As I implied above, I started the thread on the Crisis talkpage to mitigate the edit war that I'm almost positive will follow. I dig your enthusiasm, though; it would have been great to encounter someone like you when I started. demonburrito (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Pgreenfinch

I was wondering if you could help me out with the protocol for censuring Pgreenfinch. Not only has he been incredibly obtuse and disruptive regarding the the [Financial crisis of 2007-2009] article (as you have noticed and pointed out), but he has now started spamming my personal talk page with nonsense. I contribute sporadically to wikipedia on various topics with a varying degree of seriousness, but I don't currently have the time or patience to deal with fools like this who spout their nonsense everywhere and post unintelligible sections which cite only their own poorly written articles. --Nihilozero (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanking Nihilzero for its "fool" and "nonsense" insults. But let us go back to basics, did you noticed its invasive and activist behavior by accumulating inappropriate wikilinks and now duplicating its thesis in another article? Who is "obnoxious"? Did you see also how it tried to suppress my answer to you as if it was embarrassing fot him/her [10] --Pgreenfinch (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Still not seeing your reaction to the serial copy and paste of the same political thesis in several articles, bizarrely under the pretence of "streamlining". Do you support that invasive method? It would supprise me. Or on the contrary, and I'm inclined to see it positively, is your "clean up" tag a way to say that this should be corrected? In that case I approve you fully and hope that something will be done in that direction. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Once I wanted to add something, but I didn't know which of three articles to add it to, so I added it to all three and eventually someone deleted two of them. Perhaps something similar is going on here. Wiki-style editing is not people creating perfect changes, but instead people throwing out ideas and references and the articles gradually improving - except for claims about living persons - those have to be rock solid from the start. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, gradual improvement is the key, which I tried. But I see you that you reached the implicit conclusion that the section in question is too biased to have a chance to be improved. The proof is that you removed the change that would correct the unsourced generalization in its title. If, as you seem to think, no change can correct the gross original research that supports that section, maybe it would be simpler to remove the section itself, don't you think ? --Pgreenfinch (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Political instability related to the economic crisis" is claimed in the sources provided. "Widespread political instability related to the economic crisis" is NOT the title of the section. I do not believe "the section in question is too biased to have a chance to be improved". Why do you insist on misrepresenting the title, the section, the sources, and the people you talk to? WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that section is a complete mess, a patchwork of spook speculation, crystal ball visions, half-baked statements and editorials, disparate isolated misrepresented events, original research and political POV, journalistic exagerations, nothing that links and holds together, and of course all things completely unrelated to the article topic. Hard to imagine something more unencyclopedic. Btw, you know perfectly well that the title is formulated as a generalization, instead of introducing the section as a selective list (what about the myriad of places without unrest?), an opinion and a projection (even the "sources" you added in a haste show it). And now you insist that I'm the one who misrepresent things? --Pgreenfinch (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Autoformatting_responses

Regarding your comments in opposition to date autoformatting, I'd like to point out that most dates are already linked, and that it's de-linking them (in the event that autoformatting is turned off) that would require more work. --Sapphic (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Avian-influenza-related articles

Hi there! Since you seem to be the primary author of the H5N1-related articles, I thought I'd ask you a couple of questions. Before I do that though, I'd like to say that you've done a great job on the articles!

I'm interested in updating the articles and I first went to Avian influenza and soon realized that it is about the disease (even though there is a separate article about the H5N1 transmission). What do you think about simply redirecting Avian influenza to H5N1? I mean, sure there are other avian variants, but most people come to the page thinking of H5N1; alternatively, Avian influenza could be redirected to Influenza A ..., but that could be problematic as well. What's your take on it? It seems to me that the article Avian influenza is causing needless confusion.

If I want to update H5N1 and related articles (and you would be most welcome to join me), will you mind if I separate the references into two sections: a) Notes and b) references, the latter arranged alphabetically? See Avian influenza for an example. Ideally, then, you would footnote using {{Harvnb|...}} format (which I didn't bother with in Avian influenza since it seems like a redundant article). Please let me know. And congrats again for an excellent set of articles! Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes, that I do understand, but I guess I was asking if you intended the Avian influenza page to be about all the different avian diseases caused by the different subtypes of Influenza A? If so, wouldn't there be some repetition between the bird flu section on the Influenza A page and the Avian influenza page? Do you mainly see the Avian influenza page to be more detailed? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles contain some repetition. Originally, I tried to keep the repetition to a minimum, but too many people complained that when they went to an article about some aspect of flu, they wanted that article to have a complete set of information and they did not want to have to clink on other articles. So there is more repetition than I would like, but the readers seem happier.WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Next time please talk before changes

Hi, I saw you changed back the image for the pandemic severity index, first of all I worked about half an hour on a new png version that was released into the public domain without any of the jpeg compression, and second why would you do that? Seriously, if you didn't like something about my version why didn't you download the PSD and change it? I am afraid I am going to change it back because you didn't leave a reason for editing it. If you would like to talk about this please visit my talk page. ZStoler (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Pandemic Severity Index

Hi WAS,

Has the Pandemic Severity Index featured in the recent H1N1 outbreak.

Also I noticed someone added "Prevention" to all instances of the CDC, but was the CDC actually the CDC&P when the PSI was developed?--ZayZayEM (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive?

Hi WAS 4,250. I suggest you make yourself an archive for your talk page. Its really big to keep as one page and would be more oganised with one. Ross Rhodes (T C) ^Sign! 16:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine flu vaccine straw genetics poll

I rewrote the vaccine genetics section. You can view it at Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak#Option B. Since you said "keep or rewrite", I was wondering what your opinions were on this rewrite. hmwithτ 21:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Swine flu, article that really talks to people

Potentially, with a really good article, we have a chance to save hundreds of lives. Perhaps not. Hopefully not! Hopefully, the strain will remain mild, and not widespread, but 0.1% mortality times a larger number . . .

I have become a radical, blocked once.

Articles should have some arc to it, start at 10th grade level and go from there. We should talk to real people. And we don't. It's like we're buffing and polishing a school project. As if we're all practicing for our doctoral dissertations.

So, we start at 10th grade and all the way to cutting edge research! And we don't dare summarize, we just include an excerpt, with a clickable link right there in the middle of the article. I also wanted a section, "Current News," with excerpts of articles basically just slapped up there. It's a messy, chaotic, fast-developing situation. In Zen-like fashion, let's allow our presentation to be messy, chaotic, fast-developing.

So, a hodge-podge of news clips, followed by a good baseline of information (our judgment to pick good news article, but even if it was a hodge-podge). Nothing like it on the Internet and helpful to real people. What do you think? Cool Nerd (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm writing to you because I think you might be on my side, might be a radical, too. Cool Nerd (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tavix |  Talk  16:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Your note

I left a comment. [11] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI

You obviously knew that an in-depth discussion about contract editing was ongoing, so this ANI post looks like forum shopping and an egregious attempt to circumvent discussion. You've been around here a long time, so I'm sure you don't need any lectures, but please try to respect the discussion in the future. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

About Criticism section on 2009 swine flu

That seems to be very POV on your side, where are the actual source saying preventing sick people on planes (enclosed area for long time) will not increase risk of transmitting flu? Most research and advice are "prevent contact". The critic did not criticize on US not limiting the travels, it is criticizing about the fact that having ill people on planes without first inspecting them is the main problem. Please take this to the talk page of related article when you reply, thank you. MythSearcher^talk 09:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:2009 flu pandemic‎. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. I must ask you to assume good faith, thank you. MythSearcher^talk 19:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Pegloticase

Hi WAS! Did they really change the trade name for pegloticase, or are there two different ones (e. g. one for America and one for Europe, as is often the case)? Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.savientpharma.com/pipeline/puricase.asp still says "Puricase". --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Good link, thank you! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted this edit since the figure is a faithful representation of the cited source. If you need a copy of this review please e-mail me. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've also reverted this edit. Why did you think this was original research? Did you read the cited references? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, you might not have been able to access the full text of these refs, so I have added PMID 17717141 as a free access alternative. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Good points, thanks for the feedback. I've reworded that paragraph to mention both species determinants and that H5N1 is "highly-lethal" rather than just "virulent". I'm always very happy to get informed comments on articles, what do you think of this draft? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In the words of the paper I linked above, its cell-type specificity is probably "necessary but not sufficient" for the extreme lethality of the avian H5N1 strain. Some of the other factors contributing to pathogenicity are discussed in the other parts of this section, I might add the polymerase subunit and immunomodulatory protein over the next few days, feel free to do so now if you think missing these out is a serious problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll probably have to rewrite this section a bit more to include PMID 19513050, which discusses the current H1N1 virus' pathogenesis. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of CDC virus name change

Please explain why you deleted my paragraph stating that the CDC has changed the name they'll use in referring to the virus. I thought it was germane to the section on the changes in virus nomenclature. – Wdfarmer (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC) BTW, article section in question is 2009_flu_pandemic#Actions_concerning_pigs. – Wdfarmer (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The CDC did not do that. The weekly flu reports that the CDC puts out will now use "pandemic" instead of "novel" or "new". In other CDC publications other nomenclature could well be used. For example, in a section explaing known pandemics "pandemic A/H1N1 flu" is ambiguous as it could refer to either the 1918 pandemic flu or the 2009 pandemic flu, and in such a section, and in this encyclopedia, alternative nomenclature is preferable. In short, the source does not say what you think it says. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the amazing amount of work you're putting into the various influenza articles, you're doing a great job and it is very much appreciated. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Paid editing

Perhaps I'm wrong. Is there a case of paid editing that has been publicly known that hasn't been controversial or worse? I may have missed something.   Will Beback  talk  00:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous cases, each with specific characteristics that make each different in terms of whether and how it is ok or not. "Paid editing" is simply too broad a term to be useful. It is "paid advocacy" that violates NPOV and must not be allowed. (Me, Jimbo, SlimVirgin and others recently discussed this on Jimbo's talk page.) Among ok examples of "paid editing": editing by Wikimedia staff, creation of images under a grant paid to Wikimedia Foundation being paid to the image creators, translations of articles from English to Arabic (years ago, paid by US government, if I remember correctly), recently paid (New Zealand?) township staff cleaned up our article on their town by fixing undue emphasis on crime in their town, and offers of money on a Wikipedia page set up for that purpose (I forget the page name, but Greg brings it up all the time). WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The New Zealand city was Palmerston North, where I live. ^rossnixon 02:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You may be thinking to the Wikipedia:Bounty board, though since the money is donated it's hard to see that as "paid" editing. You're right though that there have been a few special circumstances in which pople have been paid to create content or edit. I'd say that those are few and narrow enough that they do not create a precedent for the type of paid editing that is generally meant by that term. The RfC does not appear to have resulted in a consensus to support it.   Will Beback  talk  01:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

my humor

What's your point? I just want to know whether your comment was directed at both of us or just me (I hope not). Pzrmd2 (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

hey

I think there is a very dangerous section in the NPOV policy, which I deleted and discussed on the talk page here. Now there is an RfC, I hope you will comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)