Jump to content

User talk:WAS 4.250

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Who (talk | contribs) at 10:58, 15 October 2005 (→Useful links: fix wikilink). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

New stuff at the bottom, please. Archive 1

I am a patriot of America and the United States Constitution. The right to burn the flag is symbolized by the flag.

Notes

One may place {{unsigned}} at the end of an unsigned remark.

Please distinguish between Sources (not connected to a specific fact), References (an external link or name of a source conected to a specific fact), and external link (term is best used when it is NOT also a reference or source).

New sections go at the BOTTOM.

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~).

What I see

I am red-green color blind and see diminished red. The green light in a traffic light looks white to me.

File:TestNothingGamma165.png- File:TestProGamma165.png- File:TestDeuGamma165.png- 

I see 83.       I don't see number. I don't see number.

B=black w=white r=red g=green y=yellow b=blue p=pink a=aqua(blue-green) o=orange v=violet(dark blue)

This image represents light from a prism in sunlight. I see:

BvbbbbbbbaaaggggggggoooooorrrrrBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

This image is a rendition of the computer color spectrum, showing the relative intensities of each of the three colors which are combined. I see:

rrrrrrrooyyyyggggggggggggwwaavvbbbbbbbbbppprrrrrrrrr

God

God is Santa Claus for scared adults who want a daddy in the sky; a government lie to get people to fight to the death; an anthropomoriphication of nature (the sun is trying to make me hot), and a social institution with a useful social role for a superstitious species. WAS 4.250 16:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hoorah!

Glad to have you, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, glad you got yourself a username. See you around, buddy! John Smith's 13:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simplex algorithm

Please stop sabotaging my attempts to add algorithmic content to the Simplex algorithm article. Thanks in advance. --Fredrik Orderud 12:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. My bad. WAS 4.250 14:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. No hard feelings :) --Fredrik Orderud 14:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Club-winged Manakin

(content moved to User talk:Jimfbleak)

New addition on my talk - Jim
category comment on my talk - jim

conversation reproduced below:

Can we talk?

We apparently have differences of opinion with regard to two issues: (1) copywrite and fair use (2) verify-ablility and sourcing/referencing. This is apparently causing an edit conflict between us on Club-winged Manakin. Would you like to discuss this with me? WAS 4.250 23:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I didn't really see it as either an edit war or a copyright issue. I made the changes I did for the following reasons

  • The style of this article was not consistent with other bird articles, so I changed the format to be more like other pages
  • There were some factual errors - other manakins make mechanical sounds with their wings at the display leks (I've seen three species do this). Also I thought it was the peacock's tail that was important in display, not the wings
  • I didn't think it was necessary to repeat the references in both the text and the list of sources
  • Since the extensive quotations are in the sources, I thought it more important to extract the essence of what was being said than the actual words, especially as some of it was rather waffling and digressive in nature. I don't know if there is a copyright issue, but that wasn't my reasoning

Sorry if I've caused problems, I tried to reflect what the article was saying, but in what, at least to me was a more appropriate way. I don't know if we can reach a compromise on the style, or whether you would prefer to seek the views of others? jimfbleak 05:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I've moved your respose here. It makes sense to me to have it all in one place. Move the whole thing to my talk page, if it matters to you where we put it. Or, you could reply again on my talk page and I move it too. Or ... well, you get the idea.
  2. Since it is not an edit war or a copywrite issue, we should be able to wrap this up fast since you care about form and appearance and I only care that (1) the data is there somewhere and (2) verifyability is maximized.
  3. Many other pages share the problem of lack of verifyability and changing a page to be consistant with that bad trait is a bad thing not a good thing. Please investigate the use of sources and quotes and references in the featured articles and in the guidelines and elsewhere so you don't inadvertantly make articles worse.
  4. As far as factual errors, everything was based on the provided SOURCES. This illustrates the need for sources. The way to handle one source saying one thing and another source saying something else is to QUOTE both sources AND LET THE READER DECIDE. We don't do "Truth" at wikipedia, we present what reputable sources say and let the reader decide. Newpapers get things wrong a lot so if a newspaper says one thing and a university source says something else, REPLACING the newspaper quote with the university quote makes sense. But just deleting it because you personally know better is not a process that is workable on a site where "anyone can edit". Find a quote/source that says what you know and use that, so others can VERIFY.
  5. About repeating the source in the article and at the bottom: The BEST way is using a referencing system as the best (e.g RECENTLY featured articles) articles in wikipedia do. The worst way omits sources altogether. Putting the source in only the text is not as good because it is useful to put them altogether in one place; sometimes one source is used for more than one fact, and it's less likely to be deleted in a source section in the bottom. Putting the source only at the bottom doesn't let someone connect a specific fact to a specific source for the purpose of verification. Putting the source in both places is the lazy man's (my) solution and not as good as using one of the referencing systems available at wikipedia.
  6. If you prefer a style that presents the data without using quotes (I would like wikipedia to be nothing BUT quotes, but that's just me) please don't extract "the essense", extract ALL the data (and, no, pointless "waffling" is not data) and for verifyability connect the data and the source (many ways are possible). Please. Thank you. WAS 4.250 15:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added references for manakin behaviour that covers a fair number of the species. I would have thought that the peacock error (unless I misunderstood it) was self-evident, but a source could be Pheasants, Partridges and Grouse by Madge and McGowan, ISBN 0-7136-3966-0. Do you want to have a go at doing an edit that meets both of our concerns - basically we have the same objective of producing a good article, so I'm sure that we can sort something out between us.
Why category Pipridae - my old world list of birds gives three species in this genus? - Jim
  1. On line sources are easier to verify, but ALL sources and their data are very very welcome.
  2. As I'm lazy (like I said earlier), I'm a kinda hopeing to come back to the article in a few days and not feel a need to make ANY changes. But I'm not so lazy that I wouldn't want to help you make the article better if you feel that properly sourcing data is something you wish my help on. (I don't know why you would; I'm guessing you can do that at least as well without me - I might even cramp your style!)
  3. About "category Pipridae" : I don't recall. WAS 4.250 16:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, maybe you are thinking I'm placing the bird in this category??? No, the category designation is for the article to group like articles in a tree like structue so people can find similar articles. Or is the issue something else? WAS 4.250 16:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the principle, and to me Category:Pipridae makes sense. However, I thought that the standard pattern was a category link to the genus rather than the family (unless there are no other species in the genus) - I don't mind what you do on category though.
On-line sources are easier to check, but not always as reliable as standard texts. Jim
  1. I only care that some useful category is used so people can find it without knowing exactly what to type for the title. People who do care about categories are going around spending day after day changing categories to the lowest one that still includes other articles (I think I have that right).
  2. While standard texts are more reliable than some on line sources, online sources, by nature, are better positioned to be updated when things change (and in science we discover new stuff all the time - yeaaaa for science!)
  3. I didn't remember the peacock thing so I looked up my initial article creation just now and see that the reporter called the peacock tail feathers "wing" feathers. I always thought of the tail feathers like a third wing - sort of like talking about a monkey's four or five "hands" - including his feet and maybe his tail. I guess it depends if you are discussing "anatomy" or "use". If a bird uses its tail like a stabalizing wing can it be a wing in addition to being a tail? So it never occured to me calling the tail a wing was an error. To me it was just another way of looking at it. WAS 4.250 17:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enteric nervous system

I believe the edits you made lately lead to a copyright infringement, therefore I reverted to the last version. I find the quotation you presented however brillinat, and if you have the permission of NY Times, plz bring it into the article one more time (but plz make the copyright clear on the talk page). --Dbach 09:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am European and no specialist in US copyright jurisdiction ... if you are sure what you are doing just go ahead. I still think it is a good idea in such cases to make that clear on the talk page. Dbach 18:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copywrite and fair use

Fair use says "Fair use makes copyrighted work available to the public as raw material without the need for permission or clearance, so long as such free usage serves the purpose of copyright law, which the U.S. Constitution defines as the promotion of "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (I.1.8), better than the legal enforcement of claims of infringement."

See [1] for further information.

"RULES OF THUMB FOR COURSEPACKS

The Classroom Guidelines that were negotiated in 1976 can provide helpful guidance and we recommend that you read them. 1. Limit coursepack materials to

  • single chapters
  • single articles from a journal issue
  • several charts, graphs or illustrations
  • other similarly small parts of a work. "

from [2] illustrates the principle of extracting part of a work being covered by fair use.

The New York Times itself quotes others.

"Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work." [3] therefore a quote that essentially lists facts isn't even covered by copywrite in the first place.

Wikipedia primary servers are in the US.

While it would be nice to have no legal complications, the rich in this world are seeking to own everything including math equations (which is what software patents are).

Don't help memes that block the free flow of information. Help memes that promote freedom. Fair use is one such doctrine, law and meme. WAS 4.250 13:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam

I replied @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#from_Talk_page_of_Existence_of_God. If the topic really interests you, try IM [[4]]. Cheers, Tasks you can do 00:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't IM and I don't converse via E-mail. I am willing to make exceptions, but only for money or love. WAS 4.250 01:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahahaha... makes me wish I had some amway to sell you... Tasks you can do 02:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Nonexclusive atheism

I think someting along the lines of what you showed me belongs in the article, but that particular version is somewhat "original research"-ish, which may be part of the reason why it was removed. See if you can rewrite it with more sources, and perhaps modify that black box white box bit to be a little more formal. Andre (talk) 17:52, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion continued where it started at: talk WAS 4.250 18:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina

I reverted your additions to Hurricane Katrina because a) WP:NOT a crystal ball and b) the information on Hurricane Betsy belongs in the Hurricane Betsy article, not in Katrina.

Also, most of the information on your talk page goes on your userpage. See others talk pages. --tomf688<TALK> 16:12, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


Nonsense

I just noticed and replied to your comment @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#from_Talk_page_of_Existence_of_God. If the conversation is making you angry or uncomfortable, you are under no obligation to continue. I feel no special need to force my paradigm on anyone, but I am willing to discuss when asked. Cheers, Tasks you can do 20:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I absolu-tively am not angry or uncomfortable in this discussion with you. I was an evangelistic Christian. Now I am an evangelistic atheist and I am pleased to show you "the way, the door, the truth" (if you know anything of evangelical Christianity you can recognise this as me making fun of myself). I know neither of us "force", both of us believe ourselves instruments of what is good (in some sense). WAS 4.250 00:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I admit I am evangelical in a way, but my goal is to convert others into self-actualization, not any specific religion. For example, I have a friend who calls himself an "atheist", but who understands my conception of God (as a personal incarnation of existance) as valid, and even further, thinks that the Christ commonly concieved of is a pretty good role model. Clearly there isn't much farther he needs to go, and if he feels an emptiness and need for greater metaphysical depth, he would have to be the one to begin that search. I must admit I am intolerant of actual atheism, much as I am intolerant of actual hyper-calvinism, but IMO there are about as many actual adherants of the one as the other, and both #'s combined arn't far from 0 ;) Oh, and I replied to the above thread on my talk page. Cheers, Sam Spade 12:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I chose trotsky beause he was a "true believer", and thus might have been far more focused on the grand social experiment, and not on "what works" in the cold hard world. My guess he would have created a short lived but interesting "utopia". Or, maybe he would have proved that power corrupts, and been much the same as stalin ;) Yet more replies @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#from_Talk_page_of_Existence_of_God, btw. Sam Spade 15:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I moved our thread to its own page, due to size contraints. Feel free to continue if you like, here is a link, and if your interested in some past discussions, they can be found @ User talk:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases. Cheers, Sam Spade 16:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucratship

Hi, WAS 4.250. Thank you so much for your support on my bureaucratship nomination. Unfortunately, it didn't pass, but I intend to run again soon. If you'd like to be informed next time around, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks again! Andre (talk) 05:15, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard#Existence, about Raygun

Point taken. I edited Raygun accordingly. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard 21:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Fruit

See the page on Thomas Shipp, and this site which is cited there, as well as other external links on that page, for the connection between the Shipp lynching, and Strange Fruit. Note thst the picture of the Shipp/Adams lynching was one of the few widely distributed lynching photos, so the account is not implausible. Note also that a link to Thomas Shipp, was placed on the page in the same edit, and following that would have made the source clear. I admit I should have copied the exxternal link to this page too. DES (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

non-guns in Directed-energy weapon

I mentioned the electroshock gun and the thermic lance there because some people may think that they are directed-energy weapons and look for them there. I have now put them in a separate section near the end. Anthony Appleyard 07:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I am well aware that citing sources is important, adn I have visited and red most if not all of the links you provided. Note that WP:MOS#Other sections indicates that the proper name for a section containing external links (even when these are also sources) is "External links". The ref trmplate and a related section can be used to indicate the supporting source for specific facts, and perhaps I should have used this method in my recent edits in Strange Fruit and the Shipp article. But that does not justify changing the standard name of a standard section. Can you point to any specific passage in any policy page that says that an external links section should not be called "external links" because it is also being used to provide sources? If not, please don't make such changes. DES (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Shipp

I have added fairly through reference notes on this article. Please give it a look and see if you think I was right to remove the {{verify}} tag. And please, stop changing standard section names. DES (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of God

"I'm not going to waste my time cutting and pasting to save what deserves saving"

Stop trying to start a personal argument. By reverting ALL my edits, you are showing no respect for me or my writing. I am unreverting the page. I am giving you a chance for you to apologise; I won't delete the list if you so want, but it is up to you to re-add that list, and not delete anything else.

Infinity0 20:49:38, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLII

Since you asked, you might be interested in the external links I added to that article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

calm down

First calm down. Take any major changes to talk pages first, and don't be so aggressive. Dunc|☺ 20:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

calm down

First calm down. Take any major changes to talk pages first, and don't be so aggressive. Dunc|☺ 20:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

calm down

First calm down. Take any major changes to talk pages first, and don't be so aggressive. Dunc|☺ 20:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

calm down

First calm down. Take any major changes to talk pages first, and don't be so aggressive. Dunc|☺ 20:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics

Don't hit the genetics articles with {{verify}} tags. Dunc|☺ 20:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment

I'm not really sure that I believe "wiki-stalking" is a real thing. Monitoring a user's contributions is not discouraged or disallowed. Andre (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

Direct copy and paste of an entire paragraph from a news article is not fair use (and much more than just a "quote" as claimed in your revert). Although your personal interpretation of fair use may be valid, it differs from Wikipedia's policy: please see Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Fair use--Confuzion 14:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of God Reorg

We're having a discussion on how best to reorganize the Existence of God article. We currently have two competing plans. One version is being sandboxed here, and is being discussed here. The other plan (mine) is being discussed here. Since I remember you being interested in this article, I'm asking for your input. (This is being copy-and-pasted to several people.) Thanks! crazyeddie 19:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1960s

Aplogies, 1960s being heavily vandalised and your revert was still full of vandalism, I reacted too quickly.

--pgk(talk) 10:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WAS_4.250&oldid=25576975"