Januszkarp

Welcome!

Hello, Januszkarp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Vsmith 17:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

you do interesting work!

Really, whatever the outcome on Aetherometry, all the best with your wheelchair work. That looks like fascinating engineering. Pgio 07:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC) And sorry if you're not THAT Karpinski. Pgio 07:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of Janusz Karpinskis out there in the world... but such a well spoken person (or group?) speaking through this user name, surly wouldn't have missed the play on sound reminding others of another notable Karpinski? Sorry if you're not that one either, especially as some may only know the first half of her popularized notability.

The big question, is whether your cogent logical path astutely presented in your AfD, will penetrate minds already made up, or especially those who shamelessly employ Wikipedia as self-reference to counter-argue deletion of an article where they lack outside reference for proper categorization, or even simple NPOV treatment of the material. Good luck! TTLightningRod 18:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, TTLightningRod. I am responding here because this is also for Pgio. I would like to make clear so that you are not disappointed, that I am not proponent of aetherometry, although I am also not opponent of aetherometry. It is too complex to form judgement without much work and I dont have reason to wish to spend time on it. What gives me pain is connected with my son, who has 9 years and makes much use of internet. Naturally he goes to Wikipedia to learn. I make a lot of effort to teach my son values such as scientific method, open mind, not prejudice, standing away from own bias, clarity, refusing to make judgement without full knowledge. It is difficult because we all see so much quick judgement and bias in our surrounds, and so little examples for child of distance from own prejudices. But then my son goes to Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, to learn, and what he learns there? He learns a lot of things, but sadly he also learns, too many times, bias, prejudice, and hopping into judgement. And the problem is bigger than when he sees it in his surrounds, because here it is presented with authority, as being OK in an encyclopedia. And even worse, it is being presented as scientific. I think this is very bad, and I am not the only person who thinks this. With friends we have a kind of home-schooling scientific group for our children and this is problem for all of us, not that Wikipedia has some false information, because facts are easy to correct, but that it teaches wrong values and wrong behaviour as if it was OK for a scientist. It it very disturbing. We do not want to forbid our children from using Wikipedia, we want them to explore freely, but it is possible that we have no choice, because this kind of behaviour, where for example things are claimed as scientific judgement in Wikipedia by administrators without proper verification just to hurt someone or something, or because administrators who like the claim are a large group, is not example that we want to be followed by our children.

You mention another Karpinski and if I understand you correctly it is a woman. I am sorry, but I dont know who you mean. Can you explain? In Poland, a woman would be called "Karpinska" instead of 'Karpinski". For example my wife is Katarzyna Karpinska. But I know in U.S.A. names of many women of polish origin end with "ski". Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 22:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I too haven't made up my mind on Aetherometry, regardless what other users might attest to by my opposition to calling it pseudoscience without reference. I think your son is in wonderful hands. I placed a comment on talk page "Danny", it might resinate with you further. I was blocked for calling WMC the very words your son shouldn't see. And blocked justly so. All I can do is apologize to you and your son for allowing myself to reach a wits end. I do not apologize to WMC, for I feel strongly that he takes people there knowing full well the frustration he unjustly builds within people.

I also have a comment and vote for deletion to place in your very well written AfD on aetherometry. This wiki is woefully ill-equipped to deal with such material. I doubt wikipedia can survive many more of these types of encounters before forced to change its ways, or it may sink from respectable existence all together.

The other notable Karpinski I spoke of, (at least for people here in DC) was the one who came out in opposition to the U.S. Secretary of Defense, after she was demoted for not following the "company line". TTLightningRod 23:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, TTLightningRod. Telling truth, I dont have objection to my son seeing harsh or even insulting words, so there is not need for your apology. I think harsh words and insults have place, and children need to know right words and right place for words. Harsh words are on surface and it is not so difficult to teach wanting to learn child what such words mean and when is proper to use them. Much more difficult is to teach child to recognize hypocrisy, prejudice hidden under surface and dressed up untruth. Hypocrisy is way of being and gets into blood. It is like poison that child drinks without knowing. Look, now I start to speak like some stern moralist of XVIII century. I am traveling in time these days.

I forgot name of Brigadier General was Karpinski! Thank you for reminding me. I am glad I am not THAT Karpinski, it must not be easy fate. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 19:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You're not the only one speaking in a language of old.... From todays CounterPunch dotcom, On this the Seventeenth Day Of January, in the Year of Our Lord 2006. http://www.counterpunch.org/werther01172006.html

TTLightningRod 22:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't copy and paste material like that, it's copyright infringement. I've replaced it with a link. Dragons flight 00:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I contacted both CounterPunch and Werther to appraise them of my copyright violation, and make recompense. Thank you for reducing the material to a single hyperlink. In the future, I will take more time and care to locate the proper address and use that solely in place of copy/past. Thank you. TTLightningRod 04:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

My comment on AFD Aetherometry

You asked more about why I voted Keep for the article on aetherometry. I read carefully through 5 rules, 15 rules, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NOT among others and could not see a particular basis for delete. Whether true or not, this supposed letter from Jimbo to the Aetherometry folks describes my view on OR and primary vs secondary sources:

Our article is not "original research" in the relevant sense that would make it inappropriate for Wikipedia. We do not *do* original research ourselves, because we are not a peer-reviewed academic journal or anything of the sort. The fact that Aetherometry is *itself* original research does not imply that we can't have an article *about* it.

The fact that this is a not widely held theory is made clear in the article. The theory is not presented with the same weight as Special relativity etc. It seems to provide a fairly neutral view. It can be improved more - but that also isn't grounds for removal.

I would not have added it. But it has been added, and survived one AFD vote. To be removed at this stage, the grounds for removal should be very clear. And I'm sorry but they are not to me.

goodbye aetherometry

Well, the AfD went through. I guess I'm relieved. But I haven't decided if I still want to edit at Wikipedia. What kinds of things will you be working on? Pgio 09:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Pgio. If I decide to edit in Wikipedia, I will start with articles concerning Lwow and Warsaw school of mathematics and people who were members, such as Tadeusz Kotarbinski, Stanislaw Lesniewski, Andrzej Mostowski. These articles now contain very little information. Also, in context of absurdist farce, I see that article about excellent Polish dramaturg Slawomir Mrozek wants more information. Also, articles about the Young Poland movement in art, Witkacy, Wyspianski, probably many more. I notice common trend is to provide sometimes very detailed information about biography - for example, to where person moved when, all places where he worked, who was wife - but stop when time comes to explain about person's accomplishments, what was special. Maybe because this is part that requires real thought, understanding and effort of synthesis, not just copying data. Or maybe it is not NPOV to tell what makes person's work special? But if it is not in some way special, why is person in encyclopedia?

But if you want truth, I am not very inclined, after what I observe, in direction of doing work in Wikipedia. When I do work, I try to do it in such way that I can be proud of result. This is why I am willing to put in time and energy - so I can at end have satisfaction of job well done. Othewise, why do it? But in Wikipedia, many times you are not permitted to have any pride or satisfaction, because you are working with random people who often have no understanding of what is a good job, have no respect for it, but have power to destroy it. I have feeling that a lot of people who work in Wikipedia do it because their satisfaction is to destroy effort and pride of other people. I suspect even worse, that the way Wikipedia is run and its whole underneath philosophy, is to favor this kind of people. I will not choose to work in any place that does not respect and protect desire for excellence. Januszkarp 17:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

To both Pigo and Januszkarp: You are examples of shooting stars in a field of man made space junk. "Move along, there's nothing to see here folks." The shear size and influence of this wiki, is certainly what caused me to sit up and take notice. Yet I was far too carried away with the picture panted of its utopian fantasies. I think the canvas has been pulled back to reveal the still rotting frame-work underneath, and so I will contently move on without need to look back harboring doubts about my decision. The idea here was very nice, however it seems that man is still carrying too much closed-minded baggage to allow himself such a liberating and enlightening experience as sharing knowledge, freely. I wish the best to both of you, and please don't hesitate to drop me an email once and awhile.... Take care. Erin S. Myers, Washington D.C. TTLightningRod 17:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE

Hi there. The AFD/DRV debate about Aetherometry inspired me to try and hack together some proposed guidelines about fringe theories. I saw you were an active and thoughtful participant in that debate, and thought I would solicit your comments and hopefully suggestions and edits. At the moment the page is at WP:FRINGE for lack of a better name. Thanks for your time if you can lend any. --Fastfission 17:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)