User:Wnt/Archive/1

This is an archive of everything from February 2008 to December 2010 - everything up to the big CFDI debate.

Hello, Wnt/Archive! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Omar Osama bin Laden

On 20 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Omar Osama bin Laden, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• I cannot answer your question on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Terrorism, sorry.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Haitian Cuisine

Geophagy or the consumption of material such as dirt and etc. is a phenomenon which most often occurs in impoverished and malnourished areas. This is common in all the very poor areas in third world countries. This is not "cuisine" and so this does not apply at all to the country of Haiti largely enough to be added into the article. Spyder00Boi (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the source article. It says the "cookies" use mud from a certain central plateau which actually sells for $5/100 "cookies" (up 35%...) Of the sections existing in the article "cuisine" seemed close enough. Grim but sourced. Wnt (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the Geophagy article. The practice is widespread and common, in particular among Africans and descendants of African slaves, and in these groups in particular among pregnant women, by way of medication or food additive (antacid) and nutritional supplement (iron, calcium), where the particular benefits depend on the type of clay (such as bentonite and kaolin). Such clay cookies are also sold in some health-food stores in the U.S. This is no more "cuisine" than the consumption of omega-3 pills among the affluent. As it is described in the source article the Haitian tradition of geophagy is a schoolbook example of the common practice as a dietary supplement. Resorting to eating these cookies not for health benefits but to fill an empty stomach is incidental and only highlights the lack of available food, in the Haitian case because of sky-rocketed food prices.  --Lambiam 19:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again it is a circumstantial phenomenon and it isn't eaten if there is readily available food. Some that aren't poor eat small quantities of it as a source of calcium and antacid supplement but it is NOT cuisine nor is it typical to Haitian culture. Spyder00Boi (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

MobiTV

While I have no intentions of reverting an edit that I'm involved in (as I'm the admin in question), in this way, you may want to reconsider whether this addition is actually notable enough to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Typically, on-wiki activities like that are Self-references which we tend to avoid. Also, while the citation itself is a link to the action performed, it's not a link to any discussion of the matter. If that action has been discussed by a reliable source, such as news media of some sort (blogs and forums don't count, unless they're about the author of the blog or the nature of the forum, by the way), then that would make a better source.

If you need any assistance in correctly citing material, please let me know, and I can help you do it in a proper Wikipedia fashion, despite my personal feelings that it is too trivial to include here.

Take care. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems logical that if it is notable to describe whether HowardForums allowed the links to remain, it should be notable to describe whether Wikipedia permits it. After all, Wikipedia is better known than HowardForums, as far as I know. True, primary sources aren't optimal references, but as per policy I'm not drawing any conclusions from it that aren't apparent to the average reader. Wnt (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen various places mention the issue that was taking place on HowardForums, but none about this on Wikipedia. As this sort of thing happens quite often (the AAC key incident, for instance), I would suggest it's more appropriate to find news stories regarding Wikipedia's stance on "spreading the word" on things and make a section on it on Wikipedia's article, rather than this one incident. If you can point me to a news story that mentions our response, let me know. I've searched HoFo and have yet to see one mention of this there. You've read the policy on original research, right? ~Kylu (u|t) 13:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not "original research" if there's a source; and Wikipedia can be used as a source about itself. And the controversy over using direct links to the site was already the topic of the section and notable. So... it all seems consistent with the policy. Wnt (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In re per vim stuprum ("regarding fornication by force")

Yes, I do regard the reference you found as inaccurate. Your reference contradicted several sources on the subject and misinterpreted them. First, iniuria does not mean "assault."[1] A common definition is the obvious English word that follows from it: "injury." On the other hand, vis[2] was the general term to describe crimes of violence and brutality. When describing crimes (crimen), the Romans divided them into two categories: those that were wrongs against the individual (iniuria privita) and those that were wrongs against the senate and people of Rome (iniuria publica). Your source completely ignores the actual statute of Lex Iulia de vi publica, which is of particular relevance to this issue. The statute was in existence for over 5 centuries as lex scripta (written law), and at least another century as lex non scripta ("Roman unwritten, customary law"). Most importantly, it existed during the time of Augustine, the author's subject. It appears that the author of your source has latched onto a facet of canon law, which is much different from Roman law. Yes, adultery is prohibited under the 10 commandments, and one accused of stuprum[3][4] (fornication or sex out of wedlock, adulterium) would fall under that category. You can see by the reference I made to the letter of Basil that even the town that receives a woman taken by raptus[5] could face excommunication: such was the early church. But the focus of those writings is on adultery and not rape.

The author of your source makes a very controversial conclusion that the perpetrators of rape in ancient Rome would escape punishment while the victim received death, and yet the author does not resolve conflict of the Lex Iulia de vi publica, which clearly imposes the death penalty for the act. In reverting the rape article to what it was before (identifying vis, vim, vi as the crime under which rape "sexual intercourse by forcible compulsion" was enforced), I provide links to sources that are easily verified over the web. I could quote the source Nghiem L. Nguyen, Roman Rape: An overview of Roman Rape Laws from the Republican Period to Justinian's Reign, Michigan Journal of Gender and Law, 13 MIJGL 75 (2006):

"there is no single word in . . . Latin with the same semantic field as the modern English word "rape." For the Romans, the act of rape was covered under a variety of legal terms, but each of those words possessed wider definition fields than the modern word "rape." Thus while charges of seduction, attempted seduction, adultery, abduction, or ravishment all covered rape, there was no legal charge consisting solely of rape itself." "Probably the most important statute regarding rape as vis was the lex Iulia de vi, which was most likely introduced in Caesar's dictatorship, circa 45 BC. The lex Iulia de vi punished "per vim stuprum," intercourse by force, and it defined rape as forcible sexual intercourse with a boy, woman, or anyone else."

There are several drawbacks to this source. First, Nguyen was a law student. Second, Nguyen has had no formal training in Latin. I am both a law student and hold a degree in Latin, but would not dream of considering myself an expert on the subject. Third, Nguyen does not attempt to tackle the problem that stuprum is a synonym for adultery rather than intercourse (see link to Latin dictionary above), which was punishable under the companion statute of Lex Iulia de adulteris. Fourth, Nguyen attributes the Lex Iulia to Julius Caesar rather than to Julius Caesar Augustus. However, my reservations to this work do not approach the level to which I give Ms. Thompson's.

There is a real problem of individuals publishing material that discusses ancient Rome when they generally have no knowledge of the subject. They generally zero in on the term raptus and miss the term vis. We have recorded proof that for at least 600 years if not more that vis was the crime under which forcible intercourse was prosecuted. Per vim stuprum contains this word vis in the accusative, but it is not the name of an actual statute. Publication does not necessarily imply veracity. I do not believe that Ms. Thompson's article had false sources, only that they were misinterpreted. Her sources directly involve adultery, and rape only in the sense that the ancient church viewed female abduction as a form of adultery in some cases and over a narrower time period. My sources are contradictory to Ms. Thompson, but I believe that they are from authors more knowledgeable of the subject. They are also freely available online whereas Ms. Thompson's is not. Legis Nuntius (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for such a thorough response and helpful links. But there's one point you missed here and in the article: what did happen to the victims in pre-Christian Rome? To indulge a moment of wild speculation, I inferred that the source I'd run across might actually mean that if the Romans had not adopted Christianity, that essentially a policy of honor killings similar to that of Pakistan might still prevail throughout the area - that Christianity actually taught people to accept women as fellow human beings rather than damaged property. If so, that would really shed some light on the appeal of Christianity in ancient Rome - but is it true? Wnt (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That is an interesting theory. I do know that revenge existed in England during the Middle Ages, but that is not something encouraged by the church. It was during the Middle Ages that the church began to have a greater influence over the legal system and then with the development of the common law, that influence was severed. There is a law review article that explored church doctrine of the 15th and 16th centuries as explainging a certain legal equality for women in property, marriage, and burial rights. The basis for this was taken from earlier works of church fathers. In that respect, there is some truth to your source's theory. On the other hand, there is evidence that some of the same values were held by pagan Rome as well. In addition to the rape statutes that focused on the property interests of wealthy, upper-class Romans, we do have vis. Because this was a public law, the punishment did not involve private punishment as a private wrong did. It was also a crime that included all citizens, even the plebs who did not have substantial property interests. I think your inference is correct in regard to the crime of raptus because the monks of the Middle Ages came to the conclusion that raptus seductionis (elopement without parental consent) was valid if followed by a legal marriage as long as the woman consented by her own free will. This was over 500 years from the sack of Rome, however. I'm not sure what it means that raptus is where we get our crime "rape" rather than vis, which seems to have fallen out of use, especially in the sense that both men and women could be victims under vis and not raptus. I'm a little skeptical of the early church teaching that women were to be accepted as fellow human beings. The early churches required that women be separated from men during services both when the church was persecuted and when it was the state religion. It is a complicated matter that has not been fully resolved among scholars today although we have had a couple thousand years to reflect. Legis Nuntius (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wright controversy comparative incidents

Hi! I was just writing to get your opinion of the proposal I wrote to replace the "Parallel incidents" section at the Wright controversy talk page. I see that you weren't fond of it, but I have responded and I hope that you read the response with condsideration. I'm also pleased to see that you condensed the section in the article space (although I still feel it is placing too much unnecessary weight on the issue). I'm really hoping that we can work something out. Thanks! My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think my edits stand for themselves. If there were no discussion of these specific parallels in the media, I would have been tempted to add them simply as helpful See Also context, though this could be challenged under WP:NOR. Once Obama proponents began to mention them they certainly deserved coverage because the article is about a controversy which means that it is supposed to explain what both sides are saying - certainly it covers all the specific objections raised by the other side in great detail. But by now there are at least three top-of-the-line "mainstream" news sources that can be cited as specifically naming at least Hagee and Falwell in relationship to this story. There isn't a shadow of a doubt that these comparisons are relevant and need to be covered. Wnt (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that all the details about Hagee, etc. cannot be covered in this article because that would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT. So it's better to provide a general overview of this argument while linking to other places. How about:

Following the break of the Wright controversy, the media began examining religious mentors/associates of other current or former presidential candidates, including John McCain's relationship with Pastor John Hagee. Generally generating less publicity, this has led many liberal commentators to allege that the criticism of Wright was fueled by racist sentiments. Others differentiated the incidents, contending that the Wright case is more significant, as Obama noted that Wright was his spiritual mentor who guided him to Christianity, while McCain met Hagee while campaigning for president. Wright baptized Obama's children, performed Obama's marriage ceremony, and Obama attended Wright's church for twenty years.

I've now specifically mentioned John McCain and John Hagee. It also gives readers a short background on Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright. I think this is very good draft, but what do you think? Better? Happyme22 (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wright MedCab

Hi, I just wanted to inform you that I removed the comments you posted on the MedCab page, because a mediator is supposed to take up the case before we begin discussing. Please feel free to post your comments at Talk:Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy#My recent edits. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Since we've recently had some problems with edit warring on Jeremiah Wright controversy, I've made a post about working together constructively at Talk:Jeremiah Wright controversy#Working together. I'd appreciate it if you could add any thoughts you have there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Damaged

Template:Damaged has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Groupthink (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting find.

That CNN article where he says "I've always been a Christian" was a good find. Shem^(talk) 20:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Limbaugh and Maher

I laughed, though I can't get the image of Maher spanking Limbaugh with a paddle out of my head now. Shem^(talk) 03:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright controversy - title

Hi Wnt, There is currently a proposal to change the existing title "Jeremiah Wright controversy" that we supported last month. If you could "Oppose title change" on the talk page [[6]], it would be appreciated. Thanks, IP 75 75.25.30.215 (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Your restoration of non-constructive comments on Talk:Dragon Skin body armor

Hi,

Please read WP:FORUM. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, not for discussing the articles themselves. Such behaviour should not be encouraged. In future, if you have concerns about users doing such actions, please raise them with the users rather than on the talk pages of the articles themselves - for the same reason. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My own comment was a fair question - asking why, if the disc slippage is a major sticking point in the design, they don't use the historically successful Chinese "mountain armor" design. I was trying to draw out someone who understands the engineering behind such devices to explain what physical constraints they may be up against. I like to ask blue-sky questions like this because you never know what you'll learn when someone actually answers one, and it seems like this should bring new comprehensiveness to the approach taken by technical articles. Because my comments were removed, and were not just chat but a fair enough question, I reverted the deletion, and with it, I did restore some other chattier comments by another user that those run fairly far afoul of WP:FORUM. Still, deleting talk page comments is something I don't encourage especially when mine are among them. Wnt (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Were it not for the rampant abuse of that particular talk page to discuss the subject rather than the article, I wouldn't have been so quick to delete. Unfortunately, it tends to attract very little constructive conversation already. I apologise for removing your comment when it was made in good faith; please feel free to engage me directly in future if you think I'm not being fair. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

YouTube

This talk page edit was reverted per WP:NOTAFORUM as it did not discuss any issue currently in the article or suggest how it might be improved. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Jones WikiProject Now Open!

I have finally created a WikiProject for Indiana Jones! Check it out. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 04:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Morgellons and wp:wta

You are right "claim" is a word to avoid but some times it is the best word to use. MRF does not "cite" reports, they claim they got reports but we do not know. It is a claim. A conteroversial statement w/o evidence is a claim.

It upsets me more you use the word "jihadded" in your edit summary, that is very offensive, pls do not say inappropriate things like that any more. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 23:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

But, "jihad" isn't mentioned in WP:WTA, which I was citing. ;)

Really, whatever you think of the facts, you shouldn't try to slant the language to express your dissatisfaction with one side's statements. Just say as I did that they did not present the evidence in the publication, to be clear. (Which you reverted along with the rest of it). Wnt (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hawking radiation vs. white hole radiation

I've copied this from Talk:White hole as such material is out of place on article talk pages, but may properly be addressed on user talk pages. Wwheaton (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion and content here seems in better shape than the white hole article, so I'll ask here:

• is it a current theory that Hawking radiation can be the same as radiation from a white hole? Could you tell the difference between an evaporating mini black hole and a mini white hole emitting some sort of uniform material from the far past?
• What happens when a black hole and a white hole collide? Can the two types of holes occupy the same space?
• Would such a black/white combination remove the trans-Planckian paradox for both matter falling into the white hole and Hawking radiation emitted from the black hole?
• Can you fairly say that black holes and white holes are one and the same thing, viewed from the perspective of infalling matter and radiated matter, with the mathematical difference reflecting only that what goes in and what comes out must not be the same particle?
• If there were truly an infinite number of parallel universes to choose among, is there one in which any given object (for example, each reader of this article) is emitted intact (rarely, even encased by a functioning space ship) from the event horizon as Hawking radiation? Wnt (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hawking radiation is unrelated to white holes, but arises from quantum mechanical and thermodynamical considerations outside of General relativity, which is the context in which black and white holes arise. In particular, if Hawking radiation turns out not to occur (it is unconfirmed) the status of white holes as time-reversed black holes would be unaffected.

• I think this is not possible, as a white hole singularity is always in the past, while a black hole singularity is in the future. Of course matter and energy emerging from a white hole could later fall into a black hole, but that is not the same thing. The Big Bang seems to be a white hole (the only one we observe), and we also seem to observe numerous black holes in the local universe, but that is also not the same thing.

• Can't answer the Trans-Planckian question. I think not, because white holes and black holes are not objects embedded in the present in the ordinary sense, IMHO.

• All I can say about this is to repeat that white holes are time-reversed black holes. Mass/energy coming out of a white hole in the past can be falling into a black hole in the future; that is what we commonly seem to observe. (Note that the event horizon of a BH seems to be infinitely far in the future to a distant observer.)

• If all quantum-mechanically possible states must occur in a "multiverse", then of course the answer must logically be "yes". But sets can be infinite without containing all possible elements, as eg the set of even integers has no odd elements. Of course the Gell-Mann Totalitarian principle says that everything that is not forbidden is mandatory, so "Is it forbidden?" Not obviously.

Sorry these responses are so unsatisfactory, hope they help a little. Wwheaton (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Commodus

You may be right that parts of this article could have been scanned from another source, but not by me! Cenedi (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Good catch

...and I like your sense of humour. A small butt important contribution to the article, and a thankless task often I expect, so I thank you for it. Andrewa (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Me too! Thanks for the catch. Daniel Case (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages

I give up on asking Rktect, but can I ask you please to look at [7] which clearly says Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. Coupled with our policy on original research (WP:OR, much of the conversation has been off-topic in, of course, my opinion. Interesting, but not appropriate. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for autism image

Thanks for that edit to add Image:Powell2004Fig1A.png to Autism. It's much better than our old fMRI image was, so I moved it over to replace the old fMRI image. If you know of any other images related to autism, please let us know; that article could use some more variety in its images. Eubulides (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't thank me - thank the good people who made PLOS happen. Wnt (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Mannitol

Hi, I am the one that deleted your content from the TV show about mannitol and drugs use. The motivation for the deletion was that I judged the content to be trivia - people in the US often contribute content from TV and I am guessing that such is the source of the drug-cutting story. Also Wikichem has this thing about space allocations reflecting the relative significance of the usage, so while your story is fascinating at some level, its notability is questionable compared to the big applications that broadly affect humankind. In any case, I wanted to explain what went on in my head.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Since gangsters don't publish in scientific journals and there is not yet a way to automatically search video content, it is worth noting when first-hand interviews exist. I was not even the one who added the sentence about them using it and calling it "baby laxative" - I just replaced a citation needed tag with a reference. I think that such a use, however absurd, is far more relevant than the tiresome video game and popular music ads that come at the end of articles about major cultural figures... Wnt (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Message

Hello, Wnt. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits.
Message added 20:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"Car accident" article title

Greetings, Wnt. I've begun another try at attaining consensus to improve the title of Car accident. I see you have participated in past discussion; if you're still interested, please come participate in the new discussion. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C06:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Climate

The sun is so weak in the winter that wind direction is the main factor in temperature. Warm, moist winds from the sea give warm winters. Cold, dry winds from the continent give cold winters. On top of that southerly winds are warmer than northerly winds. If there is high air pressure compared to other areas, then cold, dry air high in the sky will descend in the area of high pressure, leaving it cold at ground level. High air pressure also leads to less clouds, so at night infra-red radiation (heat) radiates through the sky without being absorbed by the clouds. At the moment in the UK, we have high pressure (air pressure was actually slightly low in past two days, but all this week we've have quite high pressure) and cold, dry easterly winds from the continent. Hope that helps your understanding of the recent snowfall over the UK. Jolly Ω Janner 23:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

RfD nomination of "Non Angli, sed Angeli"

I have nominated "Non Angli, sed Angeli" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Content forks

Just to let you know as a matter of courtesy that I have cited your recent post at the village pump in a discussion about content forks [8]. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Huáng bǎi

On February 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Huáng bǎi, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop

Trying to add controversial content for which you clearly have no consensus is not the best way to change an article. My sincere advice to you is simple: wait. Wait until more studies are done on this subject. What's there now is not enough.UberCryxic ^(talk) 07:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You're the one who said[9] "(Undid revision 346455316 by Wnt (talk) sigh even if it's true it's way too POV for wikipedia, at this current time anyway....)" So it really doesn't matter what studies I have, or how many mainstream media sources or professional organizations, or what WP:NPOV says, you're just going to revert it anyway. And "no consensus" does not mean "consensus to revert anything you say outright in 3 minutes or less at any time of day or night". Wnt (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And I stand by what I said. Wikipedia operates through verifiability, not truth. The way you're dropping the content into these articles strongly suggests you're trying to push a POV. There's almost no context or no attempt to integrate the material in a thoughtful manner, almost as if your raison d'etre for being on Wikipedia is to put those few sentences in there. It's quite disturbing, and again, I urge you to stop.UberCryxic ^(talk) 08:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll say you'll revert my one sentence because I'm not adding paragraphs...

The only conclusion I can draw from such ridiculous explanations is that these reversions are not in good faith. This is not an editing dispute or a policy dispute, but purely the suppression of content you don't like. Wnt (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No, because you're not integrating it into paragraphs. I'm just saying your methodology indicates that you're trying to push a POV. Our differences seem irreconcilable. I categorically oppose the inclusion of that information until more studies come out and until those studies are endorsed by the academic community at large. If that does happen, it'll take a few years at least. If you're not happy with that, then take the discussion to the talk pages and try to hammer out some sort of consensus. I don't think you'll succeed, but it's one avenue open to you.UberCryxic ^(talk) 21:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You are edit-warring in Modern liberalism in the United States and Conservatism in the United States. Please stop and discuss your disagreements. Also, please read WP:3RR which explains edit-warring. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

usurpation request at pl.wiki

Your account is now free on pl.wiki. Please log in with your SUL password to create it. Masti (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Now all is in order. Wnt (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Kudos. . .

...to you for your patient and valiant efforts at Sarah Palin talk. Writegeist (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Stomach cancer

Thanks for your edits to Stomach cancer. That statement about symptoms/prognosis doesn't seem to be correct, as my friend had symptoms, was diagnosed with Stage I/II, somewhere on the cusp, and was told it has not metastasized. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I toned it down a little, and someone added the template requested a source to be added... I should see what I can turn up to finish it off. I'm glad to hear that your friend was diagnosed in time, when so many people are not. Wnt (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Unhelpful comments

How are comments like this one helpful? Woogee (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I called it as I saw it.... Wnt (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Petrolsoft Corporation

Thank you for weighing in on this Afd. I'm not sure what to make of the "massas house" part, they way I read it was that we shouldn't be concerned with the unusual and special and stick to what we can find on Google searches. Maybe you could explain that a little more. Thanks also for giving some encouragement to the page creator. - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It bothers me when deletionists say that Wikipedia users don't need to be able to know about something that is useful and economically necessary. Wikipedia shouldn't be an encyclopedia that only helps people become better middle-class consumers; by itself or with coordination with other projects it should try to give people the power to learn and do even the special things that the wealthy and successful keep to themselves. Lords and serfs are both much wealthier than in former times, and the literacy barriers are different than they were - but the barriers remain, and it is still a good thing to tear them down. Wnt (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"censorship"

Wnt, [10] was not appropriate. I removed, in response to complaints to the Wikimedia Foundation and per prior discussion at WP:BLPN, negative material about a living individual that was sourced to primary sources and not to reliable independent secondary sources. The unreliable sources was scribd, not the Senate. That is not censorship, it's policy. I made it clear that it could be reinserted with reliable independent secondary sources - as it happens I was a lot less bold than I could have been and Coren went much further. If you don't know what is meant when OTRS tickets are cited then you're free to ask and volunteers will give you as much information as they can without violating privacy, but please accept that such actions are taken in good faith and are not part of some kind of conspiracy to sanitise the project, at least no more than WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV are. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 11:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that you've clarified that scribd was the objection, I'll concede that it is not a reliable source since the report could be altered. However, a quick search of any text from the scribd copy finds [11], the original report directly from the Senate in .pdf format. When a scribd document is so well formatted and so plainly attributed to its original source on a title page, I think such a quick search should be expected.

I should recognize also that the sequence of events is in part due to the posting on Jimbo Wales' talk page, but something still seems very wrong when an article loses the Senate source, then is challenged for lack of notability by seven delete votes in the following two hours. And when I warn about this, the response to invoke CSD:G10, interpreted to mean deletions of sourced negative material, no matter what it says.

Since I can't read the OTRS ticket directly I can't take it into account - in any case it shouldn't contain anything useful to the policy issue. Frankly, I have a strong suspicion that what happened here is: a woman who can (according to one source) pay $25 million at a time for things complained to Wikipedia, so everyone near the top is running in terror to comply with her demands ASAP. But it's not the policy people agreed on, or which would apply to a more ordinary person. Wnt (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

User:James dalton bell

Hello, Wnt. You have new messages at NeilN's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re [12], have you actually read the huge blocks of text he posted? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any quick way to load all 67 diff's, but a dozen or so I looked at seemed to have only fairly common levels of incivility. He wouldn't pass an RfA with comments like the ones I saw but he doesn't deserve a lifetime block either. Wnt (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't comment on the Inge Lynn Collins Bongo article as I obviously haven't seen it but if you want to improve the Bell article, read through it and bring up content which you don't think is neutral on the talk page or be bold and make the changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I like your style

I just saw your comment titled Geography, I like the way you're thinking.

I'd like to see if we can setup a more direct communication channel, something like Jabber/XMPP or IRC maybe?

--Bruce (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Miraculous birth

Thanks--your explanation is encouraging. So what do I do at this point? He is sitting on my article and bossing me around. I believe he is a previously banned editor who threatened to get even with me on another article and that he has no intention of collaborating on this one. Who do I approach about his reorganization to a Christianity-type article, if that is the only thing I try to do? I think I have to just say goodbye to that article. Or can I still revert the merge? By the way, one of his cronies left a message on that talk page after you were there, congratulating him on him patience. Or maybe it was him, talking to himself. He does that.--Hammy64000 (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I see you left a link for merging help. I'll see what I can do.--Hammy64000 (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't get carried away trying to read motives into what everyone is doing. Most of these people (just like me) walk into a chaotic situation and say or do the first thing that comes to mind.

The merge was relatively recent, and while it might not be best to simply revert it (you've put in some work since that time), there's still nothing wrong with converting your original article from a redirect back to an article again and requesting discussion of any proposed merge. They are somewhat different topics, after all, and I suspect that if miraculous births were fully populated from all mythology, someone would need to split out a section on virgin births anyway.

If all you really care about is the article you started, maybe it would be best to contest the merge, focus your efforts on virgin birth (mythology), and hopefully persuade Ari89 to focus his efforts on miraculous births, summarizing and integrating content from the other article in the "WP:summary style". Wnt (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I do want to put most of that information in another article. All I cared about when I started was to add some information regarding ancient beliefs about virgin birth (or virginity in high religious beliefs)--especially Hebrew beliefs. I saw in another article that this information was needed. The Virgin birth (mythology) article was already there, but it was basically an outline of myths with the claim that they were not like the virgin birth of Jesus and complaints on the discussion page that it was just a list of births.

I didn't want to write the whole article and there was no talk page for the entire time I was working on it. I first offered to put my information in the Virgin Birth of Jesus and got no takers. That is why this is so infuriating--he waited until I was finished with it, and then merged it. Also he claimed the article title wasn't needed, but I only wrote in what was already there. But most importantly, the Miraculous birth article should have been the one merged. All that was there was the birth from a fruit section. He moved it there because he disagreed with my content and wanted to control it.

I'm not a person who makes things up. I know what I see. Also If you mean contest the merge on a talk page, that is all I've been doing since he merged it. I'm not in the mood to hear about my paranoia, and incivility again and hear his self-righteous tyrades, so I'm not going there again. Worse, I don't know if he will do this on any other article I write. I evidently don't get Wikipedia since everyone seems to be so sanguine about what he is doing. There are few problems with doing a manual merge: 1. I don't know how to change the virgin birth mythology article back into a regular article. 2. He will just change it back again. 3. If you will read his discussion, you will see that without bluster and rude remarks he has nothing to say to me. Are you sure we are understanding the issues here?--Hammy64000 (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No need to reply--I'm going in another direction.--Hammy64000 (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems like you really need to explore more of the basics of Wikipedia - and feel free to ask when you don't know how to do something. Everyone else's edits seem much more sinister when you don't know you can so easily undo them!

A redirect is just a version of the page that starts with the special string #REDIRECT and then has a Wikilink to the place you want it to go to. So if you want to change Virgin birth (mythology) back to an article, first go to the article. You'll get redirected, but click the little link at the top of the target article where it says "Redirected from..." Then click the History tab to see the versions. The last one will be the redirect. If you want to undo the move, you can just hit "undo" next to the last edit, and it'll automatically send you into an edit that will bring the article to the preceding version. (You can also edit the redirect page directly, and type in or paste a new version).

As far as controlling the content, this is Wikipedia - the content is free, and everybody gets a chance to mess with it. I have some ongoing disagreements of my own with those who disagree ... everyone does. But what's most important is to say what it is that you want and why you want it, so that you can persuade third and fourth parties of the changes you need. Wnt (talk) 04:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm printing your reply. It's true, I do need to learn this stuff. I've tried to avoid learning it, but I see that hasn't worked out very well.

I also wanted to thank you for your contributions to the article. I see now that you were trying to express support for the sources. Also, I'm working on an answer to your question about Virgil's "prophecy."--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

But I have found many things and asked questions about others. This takes time. For example, the request for a third opionion. Thanks again.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Eric Ely

I have been watching this discussion with some bemusement, and an uncertain yet uneasy feeling, which I can only put a name to after reading your comment. Well said. Weakopedia (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Wnt, I think I may have read you wrong. I don't know if your absence after my last remark was stunned silence or if you just went somewhere. Thanks for the advice anyway.--Hammy64000 (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not that - I'm just nosing into too many arguments at the same time. Basically, I'm trying to figure out what went wrong with Wikipedia... Wnt (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I still need information about the signature problem. I might still be misunderstanding what I see, but I don't understand the problem. I looked at the "bees" proposal, under the Hebrews heading. The Robert Eisler reference you thought was the problem is in parenthesis--not in standard reference form--so it shouldn't still be a problem. But the signature problem can still be seen with my signature signed again, as though it was never signed. Also, the signature that comes right before the "bees" proposal looks like it has the same problem, as well as my later comment under the "Better sources" heading.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiMissing

Hi there, thanks for adding the message on WikiMissing.org

Yes, i did right the page, but requested it to be deleted ages ago

And thats why i came up with the idea, because if you try and look for a missing person, you have the ICMEC databse, the NCMEC database, and personal databases so why not just 1 where everything is.

But it has a long way to go first, thats why im mostly doing stuff on testing

Sghfdhdfghdfgfd (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

PS im changing my username to the name of the logo we are going to have (as promotional usernames arnt allowed) -Sghfdhdfghdfgfd (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, there's something I don't understand about the site as you've changed it. I don't understand how the discussion of which images are legal fits in to your plan to track missing persons.

I know it does seam that way, but wikimissing will be for "a site what lists all missing people world wide and provides information on the releative laws and its probally likely that an abductor will take photos, which would be illegal. Also the IWF does not make it clear exactly what is and isnt illegal so we hope to make it clear by doing something like this:

image of a child - illegal _{obvously this isnt illegal, but its an example}

because reading the law on these type of things, its like person gulity if blah or blah and blah

so it would be a lot easier to just go "this is illegal" and "this is legal"

You didn't Wikilink the discussion on the testing site that you refer to, and it's not obvious when I go to the site where it is.

thats because we were informed by one of our users after people went onto wikimissing after posting a message on Jimbo's talk page (about the way wikipedians spoke to someone on the IRC)

I hope that your kind idea to help people find missing kids doesn't get hijacked by the politics of the Internet Watch Foundation and even more blatant forms of Internet censorship in Australia. Certain people interested in mandatory censorship of the Internet love to talk about child pornography (or screen it to one another at conferences), but no sooner do they set up their "filter" (a propaganda term that should always be challenged) than you find out that they're blocking access to American anti-abortion sites.

yea, but its like drugs, doing them is illegal, talking isnt because we are the side what will fight cp as best as we can, thats why we reported the message to jimbo as it seamed like they said they would cntinue to upload images and could not be stopped

[13] Before long they're promulgating policies that small-breasted women are "child pornography" even if it's proven they're in their 20s. (This actually happened.[14] )

yea, "amature" sites dont post messages saying that people are over 18, but professional websites what do make porn do post a message along the lines "everyone over 18, records avilable at blah under section blah of blah

All censors, by nature and essence, despise truth; therefore all censorship will inevitably be abused for some unspoken agenda. It follows that all censorship policies will vaguely worded and open-ended; and because their targets are not the criminal elements they talk about, they will never allow for their penalties to be proportionate to the "crime" - and in the end, when they have attacked those people whom they truly wish to suppress, they will leave the objectionable content that they originally cited essentially untouched, because they need it to continue in order to provide the excuse for their continuing oppression. Wnt (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

yea, the people what do that are d**ks because they have not actully looked into whats being done which is like whats happend now. even thought an explaniation had not been provided for what we are doing, people shouldnt jump to conclusions about what something is

as wikimissing is like a baby at the moment, there is a lot of work whats needs to be done (as is being done on testing) before it gets moved to the main site as i am very new to creating and setting up a wiki

-Sghfdhdfghdfgfd (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There's still something about that I don't understand, but I'll leave it for now. I hope you are able to find a way to bring Wiki collaboration to bear on the problem of finding missing kids. There are many people here who like to produce quite detailed articles about fairly obscure people, often to the chagrin of some other editors here (I was just arguing against that Eric Ely deletion...). But if your site can bring editors together to really pore over the details of everything that happened on the day a kid went missing, I bet they really will think of questions no policemen ever asked. Wnt (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

HB 270 etc

AK Supreme Court: VHA v Mat-Su Coalition for Choice	Valley Hospital Association, Inc. v. Mat-Su Coalition for Choice (11/21/97)	HP w budget
HB 270 minutes	ST w interviews	Frontiersman Interview
Plenty more where that came from

Cereal Surreal (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP1E

I saw your comments about BLP1E for the Times Square bomber.

The BLP1E is poorly written. It should be something like that people known for one minor event are not allowed but one significant event are allowed. Currently, people use BLP1E as an excuse to not have any article on a person that is known for one thing. Agree? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The policy has some reason to it - there are many cases where such articles should be merged - but I think it needs to be a guideline saying when a merge is appropriate rather than something enforced with unexpected deletions. Some of that is less a matter of what it says than how it is used. In any case, I think the current "political" situation is unfavorable to any reform in this direction, because Wikipedia has been publicly stung with a couple of bogus biographies of little-known people and Jimbo Wales and others are embarrassed and perhaps afraid of liability trouble. The problem is, it's the nature of Wikipedia to ignore articles that nobody actually reads, yet outsiders make them out to be absurdly important. Wnt (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Porn on commons

It seems you are good at writing policies. Can you take a look at this and edit/comment on it. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 21:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Censorship section on iPad

Hey

Your addition has been reverted, but as its short I think it could have a place in the article. Can you discuss it on the article's talk page? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on iPad. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

And the same applies to the iPhone article... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Editing a couple of sentences to match his objections is not an edit war! He reverted me once and I reverted him once. My reversion, unlike his, was only partial, meant to reach a consensus draft. Wnt (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC) [see also User talk:Eraserhead1#Peculiar notice)

I left you a message encouraging you to talk about the addition on the iPad talk page, I didn't expect you to add any content until time for the issue to be discussed had taken place - it probably would have been fair to leave a similar note for Terrillja, but unfortunately I didn't. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I don't believe it is in any way improper to respond to a reversion by posting a revised version that addresses the complaint made, with or without further discussion. Wnt (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think I got this one wrong. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Primary?

You don't have a consensus from anywhere to change the template Template:Better source from ^{[non-primary source needed?]} to the unexplicable non-descriptive ^[primary?]. Using a failed deletion discussion with no clear yes-or-no-responses to change this widely used template is a misinterpretation of the role of that deletion discussion. Changing it for the arbitrary reason that it makes the article Hutaree look better risks creating deep trouble for all other articles where it is used. I dislike simply reverting another users edits, but in this case I'll make an exception, if you disagree you should consult the page Template talk:Better source first and answer my objections before simply reverting it. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

My only involvment was to propose the deletion. I think that issues of this type belong on the article talk page; it isn't like with unsourced content where an immediate caveat is needed. The proposal to shorten it may have been intended to address one of my complaints, but it wasn't my idea, and I didn't make that change to the template. See [13].Wnt (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Womenofboliviacontextad.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Womenofboliviacontextad.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Womenofboliviacontextad.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Womenofboliviacontextad.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Everybody Draw you-know-who day gallery

You argued and argued on the talk page there and had the support of no one else but Cmmmm, who has been banned for life for disruption, sockpuppetry, and POV-pushing. I finally stopped responding to your circuitous arguments because they strayed well into WP:Tendentious editing. Your recent edit to the article flies in the face of what others are telling you on the talk page. If you persist at editing against consensus, I will take you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Greg L (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Odd. And here I thought I was agreeing with Jimbo Wales, who began the section Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day#Isn't the entire gallery original research?, and proposed the use of the seven fair use images that I favor. When I gave my opinion at Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day#Cenarium/Jimbo Wales' proposal (sourced cartoons only) I saw no out-and-out "oppose" votes, only a variety of "conditional" votes that you seem to interpret differently than I do. I'll allow that I may have spent too long debating the particulars of how best to present original research in an article, rather than working on getting the fair use content up (in part because I've expected that adding these fair use items will be a contentious process...) While I don't think that anyone can be entirely confident of what will happen in an AN/I proceeding, I sincerely hope that I should not do worse than you in the judgment. Wnt (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

New Template Feedback

It's a good idea! One note: I would suggest having the full names of the other project listed (where applicable). A lot of new users won't know what "meta" or "commons" mean. Might make the template cumbersome if someone has lots of sister projects, though. Just a thought. Arakunem^Talk 22:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to, but I'd need to go through dozens of projects (or hundreds, to be thorough) for each numbered entry. If I allow the current 12 items, that means 200-2000 lines that have to be evaluated to place the template - unless I remake it with named parameters. (en=yes, wikisource=yes, etc.) But that's different enough that it might as well be a separate template and a fresh start. Still, thanks for the feedback. Wnt (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid my talk page

If you are going to push an agenda to change our policy to allow pro-pedophilia advocacy, please do so anywhere other than my talk page. I do not appreciate, and will not tolerate such on my page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not a matter of "pro-pedophilia advocacy", but a question of whether any policy on Wikipedia even matters, when ArbCom can make up a policy from scratch that no one ever passed, in direct contradiction to several existing Wikipedia policies. I don't think that this exception - to ban a handful of self-proclaimed pedophiles when there are probably thousands and thousands of them who are not labelling themselves - is worth undermining the major ideas that Wikipedia says it is based upon. I don't think it accomplishes any useful goal at all, it's all just a make-believe security measure that serves only to make the point that what editors decide on at the policy pages really doesn't matter at all. And no one ever answered my question about what other "longstanding special policies" exist. Wnt (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that this has now been promoted to policy [14] (sans vote, that is). Perhaps this is progress - like the U.S. Congress, Wikipedia's policy pages can make a pretense of relevance by taking fast action to provide an apparent legal basis for executive decisions. But it means that Wikipedia is no longer the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

And that is a tiny acorn that will doubtless grow into a vast oak tree. I mean, if we don't allow pedophiles to edit, well, surely any Nazi makes a pedophile look like a bleeding saint by comparison. And other fascists, Taliban/bin Laden apologists, all Islamists really (recalling Aisha I suppose they might count as pedophile activists anyway...). And what about the Crips and Bloods, the Hell's Angels, all the creepy gang-bangers who run around shooting children, or the people who advocate for them? Or other drug dealers, drug users, drug legalizationists even, how long until their turn? Convicts and con-artists, think of what they might try to do. The Inquisition has a lot of work to do, a lot of people to root out, doesn't it.

It worries all hell out of a person to wade into this pedophile controversy, especially when it's not at all clear when opposing the "policy" becomes counted as "advocacy". But the fear of pedophilia has been the master key to destruction of every civil liberty for decades. The legalization of homosexuality was opposed because of fear of "pedophilia". Anonymous remailers were attacked and closed down for the same reason. Encryption, torrents, all manner of file sharing services the same way. Those offering to protect us say that all we have to do is accept government control of who can talk and what they say and the constant surveillance of what they say, and generally prohibition even of adult pornography, and they'll protect us. But instead their prohibition of child pornography bolstered a multibillion dollar market in the kidnapping and sexual exploitation of children for black market videos. When computer generated simulations threatened to cut into those profits they made every effort to prohibit those as well. They take gleeful pleasure in prosecuting teenagers for "sexting" one another (let alone naughty videoconferencing), and which children are they protecting then? I think that Wikipedians, given a vote, would have seen through the illusion and rejected this idea in favor of core principles. Wnt (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: Lest anyone get the wrong idea from the above dispute, I've continued to participate in discussions on Jimbo's page, and I've been honored with his good regard.^[15] As founder of Wikipedia he has my respect for all he's done, and I understand there are pressures he cannot afford to ignore. But we still never agree about anything! :( Wnt (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Virgin birth (mythology)

I have tried to take your advice and undo this merge and found that Ari89 had redirected the page so my original article was gone. I undid that edit and immediately SpigotMap redirected it again. I fixed it but I'm sure he will do it again. I'm being driven out of here. I'm not going through the arbitration, etc. since the last time I did that they disciplined me instead of the ones who were causing the problem. I already decided it wasn't worth it to work here, but then saw the article had disappeared and it was just too much to ignore. Hammy64000 (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like at the moment the pages are unmerged - I completed the process by undoing the redirect of the talk page (each page had its own redirect, as is normal). Please discuss the idea at Talk: Virgin birth (mythology). I don't guarantee that a merge won't win consensus, but at least you should have a chance to have your say. Wnt (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Dzungarian Gate

Thanks, Wnt for your efforts at Dzungarian Gate. I agree that your rewrite was more coherently divided, but WP:Lead expresses other priorities, including addressing not detail but breadth in the first paragraph. I have reverted your edit. I explain why in detail on the talk page. Expanding the second paragraph if you think more detail is useful, or addressing the style of the third paragraph if you think it is awkward, are areas where I can see a possible need for help. Thanks.μηδείς (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeking suggestions for new title for WP:AMORAL

You have previously commented regarding the essay WP:Wikipedia is amoral; I am soliciting suggestions for a better title for the essay. If you have any, please list them at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_amoral#Suggestions_for_new_title.3F. Thanks, --Cybercobra (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Manning

I think you accidentally placed a comment in the wrong section on the Arrest of Bradley Manning talk page, so I have moved it to the relevant section before responding. I hope you don't mind. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it was a reply to the section I put it under, because the scope of the article was questioned there. Wnt (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Microformats

You recently !voted on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats. This is a courtesy note to let you now that I have now posted, as promised, my view there, and to ask you revisit the debate. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I recently redacted a good portion of a thread, leaving behind appropriate commentary related to improving the article. In order for it to make sense, the first part of one of your comments was trimmed and it now looks like it initiates a section. See [16]. Hope this is ok. –xeno^talk 03:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Hhht123

It appears that you had the best of intentions with your edit to User talk:Hhht123, but perhaps you could try approaching newcomers with significant additional tact. Labeling someone as "Busted" probably isn't the best approach. Toddst1 (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the person who made an ANI report for five test edits over 20 minutes wasn't being very tactful either. Might as well have a little humor about it. At least it doesn't seem so nasty as those awful warning templates. Wnt (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Zoomed version of an image

Hello Wnt, can you provide a ~10x zoomed in version of the inflection point where growth turns around in this image, labelling the inflection point? Thanks! We should be able to find some external factors related to it. --SJ+ 18:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the original data I went by. I hope the file says where it came from... (ah, it does: [17]) Mine is the inverse of the figure at that source. Wnt (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

291430 (see note 2)	[1] (earliest edit date)	20:08, 2001 January 16
1 (see note 1)	[2]	10:25, 2002 January 26
10000000	[3]	10:26, 2005 February 6	1483 days (~211 weeks)(see note 2)
20000000	[4]	16:03, 2005 July 31	175 days ( ~25 weeks)
30,000,000(see note 3)	[5]	04:23, 2005 December 3	125 days ( ~17 weeks)
40000000	[6]	07:42, 2006 February 17	76 days ( ~10 weeks)
50000000	[7]	19:54, 2006 April 24	66 days ( ~9 weeks)
60,000,000(see note 3)	[8]	10:22, 2006 June 22	59 days ( ~8 weeks)
70000000	[9]	08:10, 2006 August 16	55 days ( ~7 weeks)
80,000,000(see note 3)	[10]	05:19, 2006 October 7	52 days ( ~7 weeks)
90000000	[11]	06:17, 2006 November 25	49 days ( ~7 weeks)
100000000	[12]	11:12, 2007 January 11	47 days ( ~6 weeks)
110000000	[13]	00:57, 2007 February 22	42 days ( ~6 weeks)
120000000	[14]	12:11, 2007 April 3	40 days ( ~5 weeks)
130000000	[15]	22:26, 2007 May 10	37 days ( ~5 weeks)
140,000,000(see note 3)	[16]	18:30, 2007 June 22	43 days ( ~6 weeks)
150000000	[17]	12:37, 2007 August 8	47 days ( ~6 weeks)
160000000	[18]	08:34, 2007 September 24	47 days ( ~6 weeks)
170000000	[19]	20:55, 2007 November 7	44 days ( ~6 weeks)
180000000	[20]	15:32, 2007 December 24	47 days ( ~6 weeks)
190000000	[21]	14:04, 2008 February 8	46 days ( ~6 weeks)
200000000	[22]	00:24, 2008 March 22	43 days ( ~6 weeks)
210000000	[23]	00:42, 2008 May 4	43 days ( ~6 weeks)
220000000	[24]	21:40, 2008 June 17	44 days ( ~6 weeks)
230000000	[25]	16:23, 2008 August 5	49 days ( ~7 weeks)
240000000	[26]	16:04, 2008 September 21	47 days ( ~7 weeks)
250000000	[27]	09:33, 2008 November 6	46 days ( ~6 weeks)
260000000	[28]	23:06, 2008 December 24	48 days ( ~7 weeks)
270000000	[29]	10:07, 2009 February 11	49 days ( ~7 weeks)
280000000	[30]	08:59, 2009 March 27	44 days ( ~6 weeks)
290000000	[31]	20:49, 2009 May 14	48 days ( ~7 weeks)
300000000	[32]	01:14, 2009 July 3	50 days ( ~7 weeks)
310000000	[33]	12:53, 2009 August 25	53 days ( ~8 weeks)
320000000	[34]	08:05, 2009 October 15	51 days ( ~7 weeks)
330000000	[35]	00:00, 2009 December 6	52 days ( ~7 weeks)
340000000	[36]	17:22, 2010 January 25	50 days ( ~7 weeks)
350000000	[37]	09:37 2010 March 15	49 days ( ~7 weeks)
360000000	[38]	2010 May 5 (projected)	51 days ( ~7 weeks)

As you see, the fastest that 10000000 edits was made was 37 days, May 10 to June 22, 2007. The rate has fallen considerably since then. Wnt (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC) (N.B. his note #3, for that interval, is simply "The database did not find the text of this edit. The next edit that the database found is listed instead." I assume that indicates that edit #140000000 was missing and edit #140000001 was used instead, and has no bearing on the statistics.)

Great. Thanks! –SJ+ 02:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Facebook

Hi, I removed your post on Talk:Facebook again as it contravenes WP:Talk. No doubt there are countless forums and other places on the internet where you may pose questions about Facebook. raseaC^{talk to me} 21:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that you patrol Talk:Facebook and Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill quite closely indeed, removing unwanted questions.[18][19] This deep concern about talk forum chat apparently doesn't extend to your own comments.[20][21] It is your actions that are inappropriate. Wnt (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I patrol talks that are attached to an article I have edited when they pop up on my watchlist and generally only pay attention to high traffic pages where irrelevant chat is more of an issue. Feel free to remove any of my superfluous comments, I make them from time to time. raseaC^{talk to me} 21:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents may be a better forum for dicussing my editing rather than random article talk page. Thanks, raseaC^{talk to me} 21:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

After reading the policy, I don't believe your actions are anything but a misinterpretation of it. I am more interested in fixing the policy at its source, which seems to be an ill-considered and non-discussed edit from February 24, 2008.[22]

It's completely unreasonable to expect talk pages to be used as a source of bespoke explanations of a subject. Imagine how unworkable it would be if we had people continually asking questions on talk pages, that's why the policy is in place. We have a reference desk and, failing that, there are forums for just about everything on the internet. If you find an article doesn't answer a question you may have about a subject it's entirely reasonable to assume there's a gap in the article, so the proper thing to do would carry out some research and improve the article. raseaC^{talk to me} 22:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The large majority of such questions are not removed, and it does no harm. Perhaps 1/3 or 1/4 of the time they receive an answer, and perhaps 1/2 or 1/3 of the time that discussion leads to some addition to the article. It's not as good as direct research by someone who understands the topic, but it is better than no research. And sometimes it takes someone completely ignorant of a topic to ask the most important questions, which have to be answered in order for anyone unfamiliar with the topic to understand it. Wnt (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weight loss effects of water

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weight loss effects of water. greenrd (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Apparent_contradiction_between_WP:NOT.23OR_and_Verifiability_and_Original_Research_policies

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Apparent_contradiction_between_WP:NOT.23OR_and_Verifiability_and_Original_Research_policies. greenrd (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Spoiler Discussion

Dear User,

You previously participated at the discussion regarding the collapsing of spolier's at Talk:The_Mousetrap. I invite you to comment at a similar discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler#Proposal.

Many Thanks

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 22:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ref desk diagnosis

I've removed what was to all intents a diagnosis that you offered on the reference desks. diff

All the usual reasons we don't offer medical advice and diagnoses apply in this case. However, if you want to re-ask your question in a separate, unconnected section, I'm pretty sure that will be fine. 109.156.205.27 (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, it is not a "diagnosis" to tell someone curious about unprovoked blister-like lesions on his feet that he might be interested in the article about plantar warts. He might use it to diagnose himself, yes, but that is not a crime, and in countries with poor access of large segments of the population to healthcare, it's practically mandatory. Wnt (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have tried this Kafkaesque approach that you describe, for curiosity about what the response will be. Wnt (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand. If you would like to ask about your own, past experience, and seek relevant medical references, feel free to start a new section to ask this question, completely unconnected to the original question. Editing the original question in the way you did looks much like an attempt to offer medical advice. If you would like to discuss this, I recommend going to the ref desk talk page, where you can get input from other people. I also recommend reading Why shouldn't I give medical advice on the Reference Desks? 109.155.37.180 (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. I have two different IPs giving me policy advice, and then I see a User:RedAct making the changes on the target page. Are you RedAct editing under both IPs? Wnt (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed you are confused. I am not RedAct. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sunderland A.F.C.

Hi, here you stress the importance of hooliganism, where in reality this isn't much of an issue for Sunderland A.F.C.. Sunderland06 (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, a reference I found would seem to contradict this. It's possible that the team effectively cracked down on hooligans, but that seems worth mentioning.

I added this bit because I don't approve of the whitewashing of articles, nor of "recentism"; a featured article should comprehensively cover all facets of the subject. Wnt (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops - apologies

Apologies for this. To save time and resources, I will self trout-slap.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No it's common sense

Whether or not one believes that a person topic banned in natural sciences should just assume that he has to go back to the committee and ask whether mathematics is covered, that's a power issue and not an improve-the-encyclopedia issue. Wnt (talk) 7:14 am, 20 November 2010, Saturday (11 days ago) (UTC+8)

No it's simple common sense. If you're topic banned for editing mathematics articles, even if that topic banned is poorly worded as to suggest you are not topic banned from editing mathematics articles, simple common sense suggests you should seek clarification as to whether your topic ban really isn't intended to cover what you were banned for (or else just presume it is covered) instead of just presuming it isn't and getting in to edit(ing) wars in that very same area again and then only mentioning that well technically your topic ban didn't cover what you were banned for in the first place. If Brews wasn't that smart, perhaps it really wouldn't occur to him that when he is topic banned for editing mathematics articles his topic ban may actually be intended to cover mathematics articles. But the only reason this became an issue is because Brews clearly is a rather intelligent person (in fact despite all the claims of anti-intellectual bias which I do think can sometimes be a problem, I would go as far as to say Brews would have been banned long ago if people didn't think it was worth giving him chance and chance again because given his knowledge it seemed like he'd make a great contributor), otherwise he would have just assumed natural science does cover mathematics. However the problem is he was trying to be too smart by half, since as I said, wikipedia has never liked those who try to get around things by technicalites due to poor wording when it's clear to everyone involved that the wording was just poor. If this was his only instance, it probably would have been left to be, but he tried that sort of stuff one too many times and learnt the result. I guess he hoped that arbcom would let his repeated bad behaviour past since they screwed up, seemingly he's been allowed a lot of leeway before but in any case he made a mistake there (although I'm not even sure whether he really cared that much, my impression is that he ultimately he was just going to keep repeating the bad behaviour and to hell with the consequences). This has nothing to do with power plays. It's all to do with the fact that to make a decent encylopaedia, we need people who are willing to cooperate and collobrate. If you've had problems in the past, that's generally okay if you're willing to work towards ending them in good faith. However if you intentionally (and as I've said there seems no doubt this was intentional) use loopholes and technicalities to get around measures put in place to try and help you work successfully in wikipedia and not get in to problems, then it's quite questionable whether you're really going to be able to work towards ensuring whatever problems you may have don't cause problems on wikipedia. And ultimately there's going to come a point when people decide enough is enough, we're sorry but you just aren't able to work in our enviroment despite our best efforts to help you do so. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I obviously can't speak for Brews but I personally would be greatly offended if it was suggested it didn't occur to me that if I was topic banned for editing mathematics articles, my topic ban may actually be intended to cover mathematics articles. Nil Einne (talk)

P.P.S. I removed some of my comments regarding history elsewhere as I can't find any evidence of what I'm thinking of anywhere so I probably have the wrong person. Either that or it's less well known then I though. Either way it's not particularly important to my point but I do apologise to Brews for these specific comments. Nil Einne (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Idle chat wrt Jimbo's talk page

"No, but we could certainly reference a Manichean sect's statements advocating such a point of view. Wnt (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)"

In the Old Testament, the God of the Jews was responsible for both good and evil. Christianity adopts many Manichean points of view. Perhaps you were alluding to Christianity being a Manichean sect? WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"... we shouldn't create a tyranny of the liberal arts commentators."""

Of course not, that's the job of universities :) WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom

Hello, Wnt. You have new messages at Cyclopia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.