User talk:Brian0918/Archive 08

Hi Brian
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you - I have fever and a temperature of 39 degrees. My favourite out of your pics is the Valle Grande Dome. It might just get through. Good luck! When did you get the D70? It's a pretty nice camera! --Fir0002 06:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Auftragsarbeiten
Auftragsarbeiten is a compound word (Auf|trags|arbeiten) which literally means out-cary-work.
 * tragen means to cary or wear (as cloths), and Auftragen means to cary out.
 * Auftrag seems like it may have additional idiomatic meaning. I looked it up, and it means order (as in to order a pizza, or give an order to a subordinate).
 * Arbeit (work) in the de.wikipedia help usually parallels contribution in en.wikipedia.

Therefore, contribution to orders or contribution through orders is the best translation I can come up with.

The page is written in somewhat technical language, so I would need to look up many words. This is complicated by the fact that my dictionary is about 100 years old and written in fraktur. I would ordinarily accept the challenge and translate the page, except that I'm moving this Friday and I have little free time. Plus the dewpoint is 21&deg; C here, so it is hard to think. -Casito&#8669;Talk

Auftragsarbeiten
Regarding your message on my talk page, Auftragsarbeiten doesn't have a direct one-word English meaning that I know of, but the closest would probably be "work assignments". It's a plural of Auftragsarbeit, which refers to assigned work (or, more literally, ordered work, work given by an order). It can also sometimes mean freelance work given on a per-job basis. "Work assignments" is probably what you're looking for. I'll try to whip up a translation of the other page header you were interested in too. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 22:19, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Brian - Thanks for your message. I'll go with the above definition. Ian Cairns 11:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Translation
Ok, here's my stab at it. You didn't really specify whether you were interested in a word-for-word transcript, or a total rewrite into completely natural English. As a result, this is somewhere in the middle... Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 23:02, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Work Assignments from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(the line that was here said that the article had been discussed after a previous deletion discussion. this line should be left out if attempting to bring this into the English Wikipedia)

Wikipedia Work Assignments are a system of rewards, in which bonuses are assigned for working on Wikipedia articles. The bonuses are not wasted: the time and knowledge of Wikipedia users is valuable, and can be used to strengthen topics to become Featured Articles or similar. Non-monetary gifts can also be offered, the nature of which are limited only by the imagination.

In setting guidelines for these work assignment requests, obsviously the basic standards of Wikipedia remain in place: the requested tasks must advance our goal of producing an encyclopedia, the resulting articles are "free" (here meaning GDFL-licensed), and must be presented with a neutral point of view. Inappropriate or controversial work offers may be removed after discussion or voting on the talk page. Work offers are not guaranteed, and the decision whether to pay (and to whom) is decided by the user who requested the work. The user who requested the work can also hand this decision over to the Wikipedia community, which is recommended in close or controversial cases. The final decision whether to pay rests with the user who requested thw work, though the Wikipedia community will ultimately determine the article content.

An example: A bonus can be offered for a certain article type. One possibility would be a bonus for the next featured article about a cemetary, or for five good articles about a topic such as genetics. Also, a bonus could be offered for expanding a list of stubs, taking photographs, translating articles, writing software, etc. There are no limits to what can be added to Wikipedia through the use of assignments and bonuses. The sky is the limit!

Old assignments are moved to the archive. Payment can be discussed there as well.


 * Thanks! -- BRIAN 0918  00:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem! Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 00:31, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Sango's RfA
Hi, Brian. Thanks for supporting my RfA! I am honored to have your endoresment and hope to make good use of the mop. Sango 123  01:32, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Chiropractic
G'day Brian, just wanted to thank you for keeping the Chiropractic article NPOV and not allowing chiros and their supporters to turn the article into an advertising hoarding. --Maustrauser 04:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Your test
"The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible." – Arthur C. Clarke. Interesting experiment; thanks for trying it. –Hajor 04:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Heya
Could you take this to WP:AN? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ya... was busy, that's why I mentioned it. WP:AN is fast because people watch that all the time :-) Ta bu shi da yu 08:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Creation science
I have protected this article as per your request. Denni &#9775; 04:14, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

I was still evaluating the article to see if it needed protection. I see I was beaten to it either way. --Golbez 04:17, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Not sure why this goes here instead of on Talk:Creation science, but sure. I don't have a problem with the opening paragraph. Personally, I like it. I have a problem with edit wars, and it looks to me like there's been one going on. I thought that avoiding use of "pseudoscience" in the opening paragraph might calm things down. I could easily be wrong; I'm sure the fighting's been going on much longer than the last couple days that I've been reading. Maybe it's the optimistic newbie in me talking, but I think that avoiding the apparently inflammatory word is worth trying. Friday 23:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I might as well continue replying here. I can see why that talk page is so overgrown, it's ridiculous. I don't think either side is communicating with the other. I happen to agree with you: saying it's not science or saying it's pseudoscience amount to the same basic thing. You and I both know that. However we're trying to avoid drawing the attention of those rabid CS'ists who will revert "pseudoscience". I'm trying to be strictly practical here: I think the article is likely to be more correct, for a longer time, if we avoid that word. This is just one editor's opinion, for whatever it's worth. Friday 23:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current opening paragraph too. Unfortunately, I am also fairly sure that people who don't know what the word pseudoscience means, don't know what it means for something to be a science, or are simply easily offended by negative connotations will get all worked up about this. As I said on the talk page, I'd like it if the point could be clearly established in language that wouldn't cause people like kdbuffalo to become alarmed, but I'm not sure if that's possible. If it is, I don't know how to manage it, at any rate. SVI 23:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Microwaved DVD
Love the microwaved DVD pics. I'd like to use one of them on one of the new flyers for something I help to run called Cafe Scientifique Leicester (see www.cafescientifiqueleicester.com/flyers for more info). Hope that's OK. We put credits on the flyers and website as a matter of course: I'll use "Image by Brian0918, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brian0918" but if you want a different name or website then do please e-mail me (see the Contact link on our front page)
 * Dave B

Problems with the protected intro
As it is established by the scientific community to be unscientific, it can be considered pseudoscience and a misnomer.

This is telling the reader that whether or not something is scientific depends on what the scientific community establishes. This is incorrect; it depends on systematic observation not the scientific community. Continue this discussion on talk:CS. Bensaccount 23:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Creation science
It looks like you're quite emotionally involved here. What would you say to unprotecting and letting other editors take a crack at it? Friday 05:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Your sig
Hey,

I saw you on my RFA. I hadn't noticed your sig before, but I thought it was pretty clever and nice looking. :)

kmccoy (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Haha, I hadn't even looked at where the reflection linked to. kmccoy (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

My RFA
Hi, just noticed your vote and the subsequent votes that voted oppose as per your vote. I totally understand the reluctance to vote for someone as new as I am, however in regards to my userspace edits a number of those edits are reversions of vandalism on other users' pages. If you have any advice please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page. Jtkiefer T - 03:56, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll give you an exact count, it'll take a little while though, I'll drop a line here when I have a count. Jtkiefer  T - 04:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * 30 times give or take, not including reversion of vandalism of my userpage. Jtkiefer  T - 04:28, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Green Revolution
Regarding your edit Green Revolution, ah, thank you! I'd scratched my head quite a bit trying to think of how to reword the "being replaced" clause. Your wording fixes it perfectly. --Ben Kovitz 23:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

VFD
This is just an FYI Re: VFD for commons:List of victims of the 1913 Great Lakes storm. I'm guessing you were looking through Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and saw my signature? It's somewhat ironic that I'm listed there, as people sometimes do solicit my votes and quite often I vote delete. At any rate, the list in question is extremely comprehensive, a good bit of research it looks like, but I can't imagine anyone having a use for it. So I'm undecided. But the situation on lists and the transwiki war is something I'd really rather not get involved in. I hung out at the edit war an Apartheid for a while and found I really would rather just write articles. So good luck and keep up the good work, and let me know if I can help out on something else. -Matthew Cieplak (talk) (edits) 01:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, and where were you before, I wonder? I'll abstain. Everyking 03:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Lists again
Geez, I'm sorry man. I'll support you on Commons but it looks like they are pretty solidly against it. On the bright side, it doesn't look like its getting deleted from Source anytime soon since you managed to get all your Wikipedia supporters to vote to keep it. Either way I'm sure we will figure out the proper place for it. I don't think source people are rabid deletionists... they just don't want non source material. The lists will probably be left on source until a better place can be found for them. After reading the VfDs on Commons, it seems pretty clear that the lists are going to have to go back on Wikipedia. CSN 04:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

VFD at Commons
That list isn't on Wikipedia. It's on a separate wiki, which was created before the existence of the Wikimedia Foundation, and long before any policy on the creation of new wikis existed. I would rather it were closed down now since the only edits to it are vandalism, trolling, and spam, but I'm not convinced there would be enough support for that yet. However, having one inappropriate project doesn't mean that lists of non-notable people should be included in any other project if that doesn't meet the project's goals. Why do think the list is encyclopedic? Angela. 04:32, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

New messages
You should remove the "You have new messages" bar at the top. It's too confusing. &mdash; J I P | Talk 08:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA! Thunderbrand 15:25, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

GNAA
I added the movie reference in the lead section, as requested. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

This page intentionally left blank
I guess I'm supposed to answer the question you put on my talk page here. (Is that right?) I think "self-refuting" is the term you are looking for. --Nate Ladd 00:03, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:GNAA
Please do not delete other users' comments on talk pages. It is considered by the Wikipedia community to be vandalism. -- BRIAN 0918  23:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Then why, Brian, are they dynamic? Why would you make something that is supposed to be unchanged changeable? JDoorjam 00:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC) [Brian says something hostile on my talk page.] I'm going to clean off my own talk page, Bri Bri. But thanks for your input. I'm sure RedWolf won't mind that, having read what he had to say, I've removed his Welcoming Committee message from my talk page. JDoorjam 04:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Please read other people's objections before declaring them unactionable. You've added in big bold letters that no less than three objections were unactionable - when all of them made clear what was missing, and some even in the same sentence. Doing this makes it look like you're either acting in bad faith, trying really hard to be rude, or that you just can't read. Ambi 00:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read through them again. I'd picked out a whole lot of specific flaws with the article - but you ignored them and declare it inactionable. Dbiv did the same. And Mysidia picked out something that would be very easy to fix - and you declared that inactionable too. The idea of FAC is to deal with all the objections, so as to make it a better article, and then hopefully an FA. The idea is not to try and have every objection declared inactionable - particularly when the only excuse is because you haven't read past someone's comment it's too short on to reading their actual rationale before jumping on them. Ambi 01:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd been asked for more detail, and I'd given it. If you'd read the clarification, then what in hades were you declaring my objection inactionable for? Ambi 01:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * We have a saying where I come from: "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar." David | Talk 10:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Brian - re: the GNAA nomination, I'll judge the actionability of objections for myself. To me, it looks like Ambi's objection is perfectly reasonable. &rarr;Raul654 01:00, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, mainly me and Ta bu are trying to fix some of the things brought up (see the To do list on the main FAC page). I also think some are objecting because of Ta bu trying to nominate the article. If Raul will allow me, I will nominate it again after a second round of peer review. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

"Transwiki wars
Such a nicely termed issue needs an article. :) -St|eve 01:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your vote of support on my recent RfA. I was quite surprised by the amount of support I received, and wish to extend my thanks to you for taking the time to support my nomination for adminship. -- Longhair | Talk 12:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Bolded objection objections
Putting up those big, bold objections to various people's objections at the GNAA FAC is probably not helping much. Especially not when they're aimed at objections that actually are reasonable, including mine. Try following the discussion and adding to it in a constructive manner instead of just trying to shout the loudest.

Peter Isotalo 14:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Mythology
It's fodder for endless wars; next Creationists will be adding Evolution, Big Bang, etc. to the category. Jayjg (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Impersonation
Someone is impersonating you. See User:BrianO918. NSR (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

RFA
Muchas gracias por me apoyando en el RFA. --Jondel 06:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

User:138.130.203.178
I've put this user up for 3RR violation at Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR. Josh Parris [|#] 07:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)