User talk:WAS 4.250/Archive 09

I'm on a break

This has stopped being fun. I'm on a break. WAS 4.250 03:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Hopefully see you soon. Tim Vickers 18:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Go and smack some vandals about, that always makes me feel better! :) Tim Vickers 15:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. if you do this helps.

First good laugh I've had in days. Thanks. Being old is no fun. They just found out the cause of a painful condition I've got. (Now added to the list of my various age related conditions.) Last week I was put on a drug that helps with the pain. Today I see the doc again. Reading up on the disease leads me to believe she will prescribe a second drug that prevents the cause of the pain. There are apparently a few that usually work. Yes, I'm being careful about revealing too much personal info. Thanks again. WAS 4.250 16:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 33	13 August 2007	About the Signpost

CC 3.0 licenses accepted on Commons	Reviewing five software requests
WikiWorld comic: "2000s"	News and notes: Meetup, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 21:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion article

I have noted this post [1]. I am not going to respond as the post and edit summary stands out like a sore thumb. Please let your logic stand by itself and don't rise to the bait. Sticking to the content is the way out of the problem. Spenny 13:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for helping wikipedia to be a better encyclopedia. If it were not for people like you, I would have never joined this wonderful effort to create a great free encyclopedia in the first place. Your efforts to improve the agriculture articles give me hope. Your wisdom in fully adopting John's principle of "talk about content and not people" has become apparent to me. WAS 4.250 14:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 34	20 August 2007	About the Signpost

Bad Jokes, Deletion Nonsense, and an arbitration case	WikiScanner tool creates "minor public relations disasters" for scores of organizations
WikiWorld comic: "Tomcat and Bobcat"	News and notes: Wikimania '08, 200 x 100, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

American School (economics)

Hi, WAS 4.230! - I've renewed efforts at the American School page to improve the article for its listing as 'good article' or in light of renewed efforts by Will Beback to question our compromise and work - to move the material back to the American System page reformatted to address his concerns. In this, your patience, neutrality and formatting skills would be helpful. Could you return for another round, this time to improve the article or do the above, to make it fit as good article candidate and to address any concerns regarding the material? Let me know. Thanks. --Northmeister 01:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm on a break from Wikipedia. I'm trying to be at least. So far, the best I can manage is to substitute Wikipedia-lurking for Wikipedia-editing. Anyway, good luck to you; and remember that Will Beback is also doing his best to improve Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 04:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice and enjoy. It is well deserved I think. The best, --Northmeister 17:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Another Factory Farming burnout

There are at least three of us, I think. Anyway, the solution is not to quit, but to make yourself aware of what Wikipedia is and isn't. In that respect, I think you might need to read up about Wikipedia, in places other than Wikipedia. Then if you choose to come back at least it's with open eyes. People like you and I have done much for this project. It's interesting to me that there are at least five to ten seriously good editors who have been ground up by the Factory Farming article. Good luck and I hope you feel better. Haber 03:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia Review - so on the one hand, I know what you are taking about; but on the other hand, I find the Wikipedia mailing list far more sane and informed as a rule. I am not quiting, but taking a break ... weeks, months, years, whatever. Serious changes to Wikipedia need to occur, beginning with the "stable versions" concept under development and proceeding to an increased accountability that is currently impossible due to a lack of funding (in the wake of the Essjay scandal, the Wikimedia Board of Directors said "No" to real life identification of significant numbers of participants (admins) due to lack of funding). WAS 4.250 07:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me, although personally I'd like to take Wikipedia in the other direction, i.e. *fewer* authorities and rule-makers running amok. Maybe I'll check out the mailing list one of these days. Anyway it's been a pleasure. Haber 21:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not burnt out, been away, but having come back and seen that there is no positive effort to compromise, just the same old bulldozer, it does seem completely pointless trying to edit that area. The Team just operate by another set of rules. The depressing thing is that they genuinely don't seem to realise they are doing all the bad things that they claim of other people, together with the paranoia, egotism, and the beams in their eyes, let alone the bunch of bananas in their ears. I've tried a few things which has satisfied me that it is malign, the evidence is there. I agree with you Haber, it has to go one of two ways, no rules, no cabal, or my alternative is that those who wear the badge of Wikipedia should be held to account for bringing the organisation into disrepute. Spenny 17:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in. I don't think anything we do is going to keep them from importing propaganda pics from animal rights websites and posting them to all Wikipedia articles having to do with animal use. I wouldn't even be surprised if an admin follows us here to tell us to shut up. This place is stifling. Haber 01:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It helps to keep a perspective. Wikipedia was started as a place to create material that would be submitted to a real actual encyclopedia run by experts; but became wildly successful as a not ready for prime-time encyclopedia-in-the-making that by the way was also a fun place (we used to have games and all sorts of community-type enticements). No one in charge was willing to make major changes that would kill the magic because no knew what the magic ingredients were, because the formula was completely serendipitous. "Stable versions" software has been written and is being made available this year. We are finally, just this summer, at a place where professional management is in place; which allow for some serious money raising that can fund accountability which in turn can provide a foundation for experts (universities and professors) to be brought in to provide a content arbcom (the current arbcom does not make content decisions). Five years from now wikipedia or its fork will be a real encyclopedia with professional content management. Right now the content is an amazing facsimile of an encyclopedia, the community writing it has become too large to function in the old ways, and the processes used to manage writing it are being co-opted. Even when it is not fun to write, it is sometimes fun to watch. WAS 4.250 09:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Content ArbCom is an interesting idea. Right now I think the magic is gone, as seen by the large number of editors going inactive or outright quitting. I was surprised today to see User:MartinDK getting out. What's not fair is that people who contributed to a free-wheeling project are now going to see their work taken over by paid academic types who will then inevitably warp and take credit for it. I think if the experts wanted their own encyclopedia they should have written it themselves, not suckered a large group of nice people into working for free. Haber 17:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(<--)Wikipedia is changing so the experience of editing it is also changing. Also what was once new and exciting can become old and boring. So it is natural for editors to over time decide to edit less (as I am doing.) Having one's work taken over is an essential part of Wikipedia. If one does not want someone else to be able to rewrite their work, then they need to write their stuff someplace besides Wikipedia article apace. That's like complaining that one's sandcastle on the beach is being destroyed by the ocean - it should be expected, not complained about. Can you provide a link to where someone is suckering someone into working for free (as opposed to places like Wikipedia:Community Portal that provide links to pages that offer ideas for community interaction and interesting opportunities for bored people)? Perhaps you are thinking that the whole "make the world a better place" idea behind "a free encyclopedia for everyone" is a sham. The fact that Wikipedia is found useful (something need not be perfect to be useful) by millions of people every day indicates to me that wikipedia does make the world a better place. I find far more errors in newspaper articles and at talk sites like Wikipedia Review than I do in Wikipedia articles; but even so I find newspaper articles and WR to be useful. Are the people at WR being suckered into working for free? WAS 4.250 16:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the "world a better place" issue is exactly what it is about. My background in the world of being suckered, if one takes the cynical view, is that in my early days as an independent worker in the early 1990s, I needed the technical support to go with the complexities of teaching myself C++ (i.e. turning myself into a super-techie). I got this from Borland who had CompuServe forums - and the philosophy was, don't return the favour, pass it on. I found this a peculiarly attractive approach, which in many ways was very American and yet so contradictory to the self-centred stereotype American. Over a couple of years I gained so much, I joined in the free support team - TeamB. In many respects it was being an admin as here, but you were much more an unpaid employee and you were held to account for your behaviour as a representative of the company.

Yes, we did free support, but it was a self-help community and the pass it on sentiment worked so well. I gained because I learnt through teaching. I ended up being a published author of a highly praised book - I didn't know I had it in me. We were proud of doing the right thing and I had a bit of a reputation of being able to diffuse the hot heads on the message boards, without ever being a yes-man to the company. It was a fine balance, but we could also lobby the company when things were wrong because of our reputation.

I think that at the moment the culture is not quite right in the admin camp. There is too much protecting themselves from perceived attacks (which are often no such things) and a lack of openness to seeing that Wikipedia is not yet fully evolved. There seems to be a mis-perception as to the value of the community, and assumption of a malign attack of those who see their view of what Wikipedia should be is symptomatic. It is not just ownership of articles, it is the ownership of Wikipedia. It has certainly stopped me from feeling it is something I really want to get deeply involved with. I thought I might be able to contribute to policy, but it is clear that the community are not really welcome to interfere there. The biggest problem is that what the de facto owners of Wikipedia want does not appear to be what the community wants, and with "open source" that is a circle that needs to be squared.

I also know that any volunteer organisations get suckered by the inappropriately ambitious: people who see these places as the opportunity to be a big fish in a small pool, and people get hurt from the trampling that goes on. Some organisations learn ways of coping with this, others have their effectiveness undermined. I think Wiki hasn't yet learnt how to deal with this issue, though it clearly has some of the scars of learning about it. I still have a strong volunteer ethic, and spend ridiculous amounts of time on planning (zoning?) issues in my local community - but I know I gain a lot from it. I respond very well to a pat on the head for thanks! Spenny 19:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an article to read: [2] It's about how some medical organizations perform better than others (the article is incorporated in a book by the same author with the title "Better.") Basically, they try to be better. They know what needs to be done and concentrate on being sure it happens. One center for cystic fibrosis treatment is so successful that the average lung capacity of its patients is greater than the corresponding average lung capacity. Every organization may incorporate the seeds of its own destruction. The trick is to make sure the organization contains the seeds of its own renewal, the seeds of its on staying focused and on course. Wikipedia needs those seeds. Wikipedia needs to know well enough what it is that makes it good and then concentrate on preserving that. It also needs to know (which, in fact, it does know: lots of things go on which I can clearly see Wikipedia recognizes to be things that should not go on) what it is that can be destructive and to actively thwart that destruction. --Minasbeede 14:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Spenny, I agree with you. WAS 4.250 19:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting way to look at it, as a volunteer organization that's been undermined by attention-seekers. However this doesn't account for the propagandists who are turning specific articles into diatribes against activities they don't like. Now if we're all cheefully volunteering our time, and we make the encyclopedia more credible, then people are more likely to believe all the articles. This includes the ones that we are not allowed to edit. Therefore we are indirectly helping to spread messages that we disagree with.

Say, as an example, that we're all from Moronica. However Wikipedia adopts a violent anti-Moronica idealogy on all its articles dealing with it. We disagree with this. Would it still be ethical for us to contribute to an article on fruit bats? Haber 02:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Every organization and every person promotes their interests at all times, even if only unconsciously. More enlightened people and organizations recognize the value of finding common ground and areas of cooperation. If you disagree with Bush, should you refuse to sweep your doorstep on the grounds that you are supporting the establishment? Wikipedia is not a monolithic entity that makes value choices as you have postulated. Wikipedia is a bunch of different people behaving in different ways; just like the rest of society. People who view either Wikipedia or WR as a monolithic entity rather than many separate entities are engaging in mindlessness. WAS 4.250 04:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between withdrawing from a volunteer organization, and withdrawing from society as a whole. I can quit the Boy Scouts, but I can't stop paying my taxes. Wikipedia is just a silly website and is quite easy to live without.

I also don't think you see just how rigged the game is here. Wikipedia doesn't have to be completely monolithic for admins close to Jimbo to gain a high degree of control. Checkuser, oversight, page protection, blocking/banning, and simple admin deletion of article and talk page histories are tools used to stifle dissent. I refuse to accept that admins should be given control of controversial articles. That's not the Wikipedia I signed up for. Haber 11:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(<--)You appear to want to both eat your cake and then still have it afterwords too. If wikipedia is just silly, then stop taking it so seriously. As for being rigged, you appear to think either that you have a better idea of how to manage wikipedia content or else that anarchy should reign. What we have now is close to anarchy (in an anarchy, bullies form gangs and control local areas - sound familiar?) and I believe is destined to have better content management by named professors and universities. Meanwhile, every year Wikipedia is better than the year before, so even with all its flaws (which are legion) it is useful and getting better. As for "signing up", there is no signing up; there is only contribution under GFDL to all mankind. Your contributions are still owned by yourself; simply also licensed under GFDL so anyone, including Wikimedia, can alter and redistribute them. Notice the alter part. WAS 4.250 18:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is free to become whatever it wants to. I am only one member, and I can't change its direction singlehandedly. What I'm saying is that this trend towards professional content management runs counter to what made Wikipedia popular in the first place. If I wanted an encyclopedia where professionals wrote all the important articles, I'd shell out some money for the Britannica. Wikipedia was supposed to be something different, and if it drifts too far from its original methods, then something else will take its place. What we have now is the worst of both worlds. It's the "free encyclopedia" that only a small admin oligarchy can edit. The rest of us are welcome to dump in raw content, but we get no say in how it's managed. Haber 20:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not true that Wikipedia was supposed to be about a method of encyclopedia creating. Wikipedia was started as a place to create material that would be submitted to a real actual encyclopedia run by experts. The values have always been something like maximize accurate useful free (libre and gratis) information for everybody. Leadership here uses whatever means seem to work towards that end. Any specific means are just means. See this written by the Wikimedia Foundation Chairman. Read the whole thread for insight into some of the fundamental values at play here (is being nice a means or an end?). WAS 4.250 21:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Silly me, I actually believed Jimbo, ""You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred." Granted he said this in 2001, but the idea is still in WP:PILLARS. I had no idea that I needed to delve into obscure meta pages to find statements from the Wikimedia chairman to understand what was going on here. If someone had told me that I was merely submitting info for experts to review and craft into a real encyclopedia, I wouldn't have helped. Haber 01:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It is silly to believe Jimbo or any other leader (political, religious, corporate, or social). In my experience, you can trust engineers and scientists when they discuss the details of their work; and most everything else should be evaluated with a jaundiced eye. In general the higher the authority, the more you should expect lies. A reporter in the Vietnam War wrote that military personnel Col. and higher always lied to him; but lower always told the straight scoop. Jimbo doesn't know what the hell he is doing. He stumbled onto the dot com craze, made some money by accident, tried out a few things (Bomis, Nupedia, Wikipedia, Wikia), got famous by accident, and is winging it. He is good at giving inspirational speeches. He functions well as a figure head. It is human nature to ascribe ability to lucky people. But it is also true that luck comes more often to people that try things and are prepared for luck; so it isn't like he was sitting on his hands and gold fell in his lap (ouch?). Anyway, so don't contribute if you don't want to. Plant a garden. Drink a beer. Tell a girl she's pretty. Be happy. Me? I'm old. Real old. WAS 4.250 07:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well mission accomplished on the last three of those, more or less, although the girl was a little young. It was nice talking with you. Have a good weekend, and I hope you're not too old to have a beer. Let's pour some on the ground for all the editors who hit the wall while editing Factory Farming. Haber 14:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on mission accomplished. "Young" for me is under 50; I don't know what young for you is. My doctors tell me I can't have a beer. I do anyway. WAS 4.250 21:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

(<--)Once upon a time, there was dying old gentleman who called his sons to his bedside and said, "Whatever you do, don't repeat my mistakes." And then just before he died he said, "Half of everything I ever made went to wine, women and song; and I wasted the rest." WAS 4.250 21:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The last thing I want is the "gone gray" barnstar! See you around. Haber 03:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

How old is "old"? Were you born before or after 1939 (you can guess why I pick that year)? you can see some of my photos over at Weather Underground, handle AHS1957 (second hint.) --Minasbeede 14:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pandemic Severity Index

An article that you have been involved in editing, Pandemic Severity Index, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pandemic Severity Index. Thank you. ZayZayEM 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm completely satisfied with the consensus achieved at this AfD. Thanks for your input. And it is good to see that our previous bad encounter didn't scare you off completely.--ZayZayEM 06:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks

I was being snarky. In practice, with the section on synthesis, truth is demoted.

If source A says "all men are mortal"

and source B says "Socrates is a man"

Wikipedia editors are forbidden to say, on their own, using standard logic, that "Socrates is mortal" - even though what is said by both source A and by source B is fully verifiable.

Add to that that "source W" says "Be Bold" and you see that "source W" is fraught with internal conflict.

But this will all be argued, if it is argued, in the talk for WP:NOR. --Minasbeede 13:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are forbidden to say, on their own, using standard logic, that "Socrates is mortal" if that advances an unsourced claim. Solution: find a source that says explicitly or implicitly that "Socrates is mortal". For example, "Socrates died." The point of this is for a few reasons: undue weight, notability, poor logic ability, and different contexts for the two or more statements that are logically "added" together yielding invalid results. Bush says we invaded Iraq due to weapons of mass destruction there. We found none. Therefore Bush is a liar. No, therefore the weapons were destroyed. No, therefore the lie was that we found none. All claims by sources might be lies or errors, therefore there is no simple logical "adding" together of claims. WAS 4.250 13:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, there is not even a concensus for what a "primary source" is much less a concensus for what to say about them in our policies. WAS 4.250 13:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk page deletions

Re: Talk:Disease surveillance Talk pages are there to discuss improvements towards the articles.

They are not there to post miscelleneous (even related misc.) information.

Unless you are interested in establishing a dialogue on why this material was deleted please don't reinstall it. If you do wish to establish a dialogue I would recommend a link to the source and the dialogue, rather than a lengthy block of text. Like so archive copy diff source

I'm not interested in reigniting a flame war with you. But please understand this is just about keeping Talk pages clean of agenda-based fluff.

My basis is WP:TPG (using Talk Pages to push a personal view) you have been posting this information on numerous pages (articlespace and talkspace), including my own talk page. It's just innapropriate abuse of Talk pages.--ZayZayEM 06:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. WAS 4.250 13:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna continue this discussion over on my talk page User_talk:ZayZayEM#Flu_articles.--ZayZayEM 00:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about deleting your links earlier. your comments on my talk page have been restored. Bad mood. I'm getting frustrated with other stuff as well as this. I do however find comments like this "I am very poor at putting myself in the shoes of people like yourself who lack the data" - this is pretty much the purpose of any wikipedia article. If you can't accurately represent data for someone unfamiliar with the topic, there is a serious problem right there. If this is truly your honest assessment of your capabilities I would recommend engaging predominantly through talk page discussions.--ZayZayEM 07:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I like to research subjects. I used to add what I learned along with links to the source and hope others would add to it and improve the writing style. But deletionism (get it right style-wise the first time or don't bother) rather than gradual improvement seems to be the new wikipedia norm, so I am increasingly dismotivated to add anything. WAS 4.250 21:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Bravo

Your gentlemanly and mature response to what more hot-headed editors might have read as implied criticism in the Wikiproject:Viruses talk page was exemplary. Tim Vickers 23:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. My interactions with you at wikipedia are among my fondest memories of Wikipedia editing. You are truly a joy to work with. WAS 4.250 00:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Calm down any yet?"

Lol that'll help. :) ←Ben^B4 13:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, he asked for talk the way one would do face to face. That's what I'd say to his face. Maybe it needs a smiley after it :) ? WAS 4.250 13:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

Longer answer (not much longer) at my talk page. --Minasbeede 13:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Influenza subtypes, serotypes, isolates and strains

Thanks very much for your comment about "avian 'flu" on my talk page. You are, of course, correct. Unfortunately, in my attempt for simplicity, I lost clarity. I get frustrated when I read authoritative informational publications that use imprecise language about influenza viruses. Clarity is also lost by lack of distinction between the term "serotype" and "subtype". ICTVdb (which is my source for some details) formally uses "serotype" for the taxon below species, but interchangeably uses "subtype" in some places. ICTV also uses "strain" and "isolate" interchangeably. I think that for wikipedia, which presumably is targeted towards an intelligent, but non-expert readership, we should not get too far into the weeds.

How about this for the first sentence of the avian influenza article:

Avian influenza is a disease of birds caused by a number of strains (or isolates) of serotypes (or subtypes) of the influenza A virus which are endemic in birds.

I wish I could do more to help wikipedia, but I seem to waste a chunk of my time reverting vandalism and trying to clean up some of the old wives tales and general rubbish that seeps in many pages.

Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 02:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We see eye to eye. Best of luck to you. I have zero problem with your suggestion. WAS 4.250 06:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! —G716 <^T·_C> 06:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Transclusion

Thanks for letting me know about transclusion. That may be a viable alternative to addressing the issue being discussed on NOR. Then, the sections can be separate, but still included, and maybe that could keep everybody happy. It would really be useful if the transclusion could handle just grabbing a section instead of the entire page. I left a message on the talk page asking if that can be done. Thanks again. wbfergus ^Talk 18:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see WP:ATT be the transcluded sum of WP:V + WP:NOR + WP:RS + NPOV. This was discussed earlier this year (minus NPOV), but did not gain traction. I suggested it in the ATT poll and SlimVirgin asked me to flesh out the idea so she and others could evaluate it. I did so in the subspace of that discussion. If it has been deleted, an admin could revive it. WAS 4.250 02:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Your post at WP:ANI

Well said post. It shouldn't be surprising that Guy picked up on the many inefficiencies and messes at ANI and elsewhere. I've discovered quite a few myself in the time that I've been editing. Fairly recent instance, I was blocked for reverting a user for cherrypicking out citation templates and corrupting either the page or references used elsewhere in the page. Of course, I've been here for quite a while with thousands upon thousands of edits; the other user has very few and has been warned in the past on similar POV-pushing actions. Not to mention, the threats in edit summaries. I contested, but no admin took up the case despite my pleading at ANI, 3RR and through many messages left at admin talk pages and through numerous e-mails.

Go figure. I suppose blocking repeat offenders a 4th, 5th, or 6th time and giving "second" and "third" chances to others is an acceptable waste of time for many. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

While perhaps you are being sarcastic, I think it is quite literally true that "blocking repeat offenders a 4th, 5th, or 6th time and giving "second" and "third" chances to others is an acceptable waste of time for many" as many admins are bored cats playing with mice. All of us here have to decide which activities are an acceptable use of our time and which are not. I tell everyone, "If editing wikipedia is not fun, you are not doing it right." Lately editing wikipedia has begun to be less fun for me so I've cut down greatly on the edits I make. Guy seems to have done the same. Frankly, I think it not wise to perform the role of admin with a username whose real life identity is known. Perhaps Guy has come to the same conclusion and is even now editing under an alias. I hope he is. WAS 4.250 05:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

True, and as of late, the 'fun' factor has decreased substantially for me. Instead of doing constructive edits to articles and pressing several for GA status, I'm endlessly reverting edits and applying warnings, and dealing with POV-pushers, IP proxies, and etc. Perhaps it's because I actually care about some of the articles that I have a vested knowledge and/or interest in, but it does get tiresome and kind of irritating. It's also why my edits have decreased from 785 to 47 (last month) and just 237 (this month). I hope that Guy is editing under an alias, but isn't that what he done with JzG? He did pop up just the other day under 'Guy' in ANI, so he does lurk around quite a bit. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It does not protect you to use an alias if you provide clues as to your real life identity. As for the "POV-pushers, IP proxies, and etc" you just have to pace yourself. Periodic purging of my watchlist worked great for me for a while. Finding others to take over your "duty" to protect a page can also be useful (and you get karma for not "owning" the page). Lately, I've been considering the benefits of looking at the tail end of the last 500 new articles created, finding interesting ones to improve and not keeping them on my watchlist. Maybe that would be more fun. WAS 4.250 17:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

NOR

Please don't give up. I am really sorry that I misunderstood - and I really appreciate your note on my talk page. I am glad you cleared it up for me. I agree that the discussion on the talk page has been going in circles for a while, and people (including myself) are sometimes too abrupt. For what it is worth, I genuinely tried to provide a serious answer to your question (your request for an example). It was the best I could do at the time. I don't have a problem with your asking for other examples, from other people - in fact, it may be a constructive way forward. Do you want me to remove or strikeout anything you wrote? I was hurt because i misinterpreted what you wrote, but I didn't mean to embarass you and don't want you to feel that way especially if we have cleared things up. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that reply.

I am unaware of any specific example provided by anyone anywhere of the word "primary" being useful in helping someone who has violated NOR to understand what they did wrong. Please make up a specific dialog that illustrates; similar to the dialog I made up that illustrates my understanding of "primary" getting in the way of such an explanation. The point is that many of us have studied and evaluated this in great depth and have concluded that in the process of trying to explain exactly what someone did wrong it boils down to explaining to them that they misused a source in making a claim supposedly backed by that source; saying that the claim is backed by one or more sources, yet those sources do not make the exact claim that is claimed to be backed. This can be said without using the word "primary". Using the word "primary" gets in the way of this explanation. Especially since wikipedia has its own homegrown definition such that someone with professional experience can easily misunderstand our usage of the term. WAS 4.250 13:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I provided a lengthy example on the NOR talk page and you have ignored it - at lease, i see no response. I really tried to respond to your concern. You ignore my response and now ask me to do another thing. Okay, I will.

Please alter this example to illustrate the usefulness of the word "primary"

Person A : "You violated NOR" Person B : "No I did not"

Person A : "That source is a primary source" Person B : "No it is not"

Person A : "See our definition of primary source here" Person B : "But that also says I can use primary sources sometimes."

Person A : What goes here that clears all this up that could not have been said in the first place without using the word "primary"? Person B : "Oh OK"

Your example muddles the issue for two reaons. Both have to do with the way B changes his story mid-conversation. First you had B saying it was not a primary source, then B saying well, sometimes you can use primary sources. B has to make up his mind: it is a primary source or it is not. Only then can we move onto the second issue, is the source being used appropriately. If B keeps his story straight, and we distinguish between these two distinct questions you mix up (what kind of source is it and how is it being used) we have four possible outcomes (2 positions B takes x 2 possibilities, he is right or wrong). To understand these outcomes we have to understand that two variables make a difference: what kind of source, and how it is being used.

B takes position one and is right Person A : "You violated NOR" Person B : "No I did not"

Person A : "That source is a primary source" Person B : "Yes, it is. And I am using it solely to assert the fact that the source itself asserts. Therefore I am complying with the policy"

Person A : "You are? Where does it say that?" Person B : "Paragraph x states that there are certain conditions under which one can use primary sources, see?"

Person A :"Oh yeah - thanks for clearing that up!

OR

B takes position two and is right Person A : "You violated NOR" Person B : "No I did not"

Person A : "That source is a primary source" Person B : "No it is not, it is a secondary source"

Person A : "You are? Where does it say that?" Person B : "Paragraph x states that a secondary source is ...., see"

Person A :"Oh yeah - thanks for clearing that up!

OR

B takes position one and is wrong Person A : "You violated NOR" Person B : "No I did not"

Person A : "That source is a primary source" Person B : "No it is not"

Person A : "See our definition of primary source here" Person B : "Oh, you are right, I can't use a primary source the way I am using it."

OR

B takes position two and is wrong Person A : "You violated NOR" Person B : "No I did not"

Person A : "That source is a primary source" Person B : "No it is not, it is a secondary source"

Person A : "You are? Where does it say that?" Person B : "Paragraph x states that a secondary source is ...., see"

Person A :"Yeah, I do see, but your source is not a secondary source because you are using assertions of fact to reach conclusions not made in the source itself. As long as you only quote the assertions of fact, you are using the text as a primary source. If you want to use it as a secondary source, you have to provide the authors' interpretations/explanations of the data, not your own." Person B : "Oh, yeah, I see, you are right, thanks for clearing that up. I'll revert my edit."

QED Slrubenstein | Talk 17:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Thank you very much for responding. I did not respond to your earlier example cuz initially I had given up and never saw it and second, when I today read it, I saw that it was yet again evidence/example that NOR is useful (which is not in dispute) and not evidence/example that the word "primary" is useful in explaining a NOR violation.

However, above you do address the issue in question. Your answer rests on your belief that a secondary source differs from a primary source in that a primary source can only be used to back up a claim actually made in that source. Do you assert that a secondary source can be used to assert a claim that in fact does not exist in that cited source??? That makes no sense. Can you tell me where we are misunderstanding each other? WAS 4.250 17:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Is a claim existing in a reliable published source a necessary and sufficient condition to not violate NOR by repeating that claim in a Wikipedia article? If so, why mention "primary"? I can't see that it helps. Just tell the violator that they need a source, and when they provide one tell them that the claim they make is not made by the source provided (if that is so). That works for primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. As well as sources in English versus Spanish, or on-line versus offline, or other irrelevant distinctions with regard to the NOR policy. Can you tell me where we are misunderstanding each other? WAS 4.250 17:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources provide facts. Secondary sources provide arguments about facts. They have different uses. That is the diference. You can use both, but to make very different kinds of claims. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But in both cases the point is to only make the claims that the source made. Distinguishing among types of claims is secondary. Perhaps important enough to actually say "Material in sources that provides facts can only be used to source those facts and material in sources that provides arguments about facts is necessary to source those arguments about facts." But even so, the word "primary" is still a distraction to most our editors. I would not even object to "Material in sources that provides facts (see Primary source) can only be used to source those facts and material in sources that provides arguments about facts (see Secondary source) is necessary to source those arguments about facts." or the like. WAS 4.250 18:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Library Numbers

British Library has 25 million books (and 125 million other items) that is for a country with significantly less than a 10th of India's population.Geni 12:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

So? WAS 4.250 13:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fewer books means fewer sources. 2 million is nothing for a country the size of India. In addition the Oriental and India Office Collections are in the British Library.Geni 13:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

2 million is more than enough for David Gerard's comment "I'd expect our article totals to go through the roof as the internet rolls out into India, for example. Nearly a billion people who have English as the language of learning. How many topics are there in India? Then we can do battle with those who regard such things as non-notable" to not be invalidated by your comment "You could but given the likely lack of sources you will run into I'm not sure you will get very far."[3] 2 million books don't contain enough data to write 1 million articles on India? One on half the books themselves for starters. You do love to play devil's advocate don't you? Your comments are a key source of enjoyment for me when I read the list. You spice it up! WAS 4.250 14:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at the distribution of subjects people write articles about. Then apply to india. Bollywood would be fine but your local village? Your local football team? Anything that happened prior to 1948 is going to be tricky.Geni 14:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(<---) You appear to be introducing the variable of motivation to replace the variable of "lack of sources" in finding a flaw in David's statement. If there are enough Charles-like people in India, lack of reliable published data on local affairs won't matter. Further David's premise is "as the internet rolls out into India" which implies the creation of reliable on-line sources including for local affairs. People love to communicate and assuming the internet does roll out into India, it seems reasonable that that communication will include elements that have occurred in the west including on line reliable sources and geeks writing about what they care about in wikipedia. WAS 4.250 14:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)