User talk:Ragesoss/Archive3

Copied your comments
Hi - I liked your comments on Lina's page. I copied them to the expert rebel page. Interested in your thoughts on the difference between SPOV and NPOV. Dbuckner 16:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV (September 2006)
The September 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 12:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Review
Hi, I've been working on the biography of Nobel winner Frank Macfarlane Burnet, give your interest in the history of science I was wondering if you might be able to help me out again with some constructive criticism. There is no hurry, but I would like to FAC it later this month. Thanks. --Peta 23:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, my major problem at the moment is how to tactfully discuss his later writings which were not liked by other scientists and are sometimes characterised (I think unfairly) as eugenics, without giving the issues undue weight.--Peta 04:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Debate on History of Science
Ragesoss,

Sorry to bother you, but could you please take a look at the discussion between me and User:Logicus starting at Talk:Scientific revolution and continuing on for far too many words. I'm trying to be patient, but I find Logicus's interpretations fly in the face of everything I know about the Sci Rev. Looking back through the history, there have been debates on similar issues in the past, which have contributed to the lack of coherence of the article.

Any assistance you (or an admin you might know) could give would be welcome. --SteveMcCluskey 19:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ragesoss -- thanks much for the help. I've answered on my talk page.  --SteveMcCluskey 14:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Logicus's contributions

 * Logicus
 * 80.6.94.131
 * 81.132.185.177
 * A. Bellamy 87.74.30.128
 * A.Bellamy 158.143.134.103

I've about given up on Logicus. He is repeating the same unorthodox interpretation of Aristotle's view of inertia on Talk:Scientific Revolution that he raised a year ago on Talk:Inertia and other venues—and he seems to have been succesful in getting a line or two on the article on Inertia to present his interpretation of Aristotle. We seem to have a fringe interpreter of primary sources whose work clearly meets Jimbo Wales' criterion for deletion on the grounds of NOR.

Judging from the outcome on Inertia, I don't think he's amenable to rational discourse. He expressed his frustration that he was unable to convince I. B. Cohen of his errors. I think his edits should be watched carefully and, as appropriate, deleted, reverted, or otherwise edited. It doesn't seem wise to encourage further debate by replies.


 * Bachmann's Law: Trolls are the driving force of Wikipedia. The worst trolls often spur the best editors into creating a brilliant article with watertight references where without the trollish ecapades we would only have a brief stub.

--SteveMcCluskey 20:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

History of Science?
Why does the Category:History of science not apply to Society of Arcueil? I quite understand it's a scientific society but does not the article contain some other relevance as well?
 * I am confused, though I wish you well
 * (Lunarian 17:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC))

Rosalind Franklin
Thanks for passing on the compliment about RF, it's always nice to get positive feedback, we do it all to infrequently I think. We are quick to criticise but slow to compliment. All the best. Alun 05:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My RfA was successful and I'm now an admin
Hey Ragesoss, I'm not going to do a big boxy dodad to everyone who voted in my RfA, but I did want to say I did notice your vote and thanks :) —Pengo talk · contribs 13:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing on Scientific Revolution
Ragesoss -- Regretfully, I've initiated the Disruptive Editing process to try to bring Logicus's actions to a halt so we can get on with writing an encyclopedia. If you can, would you look at the guidelines and procedures, and at the discussion on Talk:Scientific Revolution to help bring this to a speedy closure. Thanks --SteveMcCluskey 19:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design Talk
Hello Ragesoss, would you please be so kind as to hope over to the intelligent design talk page and add your opinion here to my proposed change to the article? I'd appreciated it, thanks! Bagginator 11:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration involvement
Please note that I have started a Request for Arbitration: Pseudoscience vs Pseudoskepticism in which I have included you as an "Involved party", and may wish to comment. --Iantresman 18:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

moving on
Thanks for your comments. I admire your patience and attempts at consensus building; they're the kind of thing you can use in the classroom as your studies continue. Well done.

I agree we should move on; some of the work is ready to move from talk to the main page.

I can't be that active for a while, as I'm still struggling with two major projects due 15 September. My mind keeps turning to the Scientific Revolution when it should focus on epistemological questions of archaeoastronomy. --SteveMcCluskey 21:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of this list?
Ive offered the following as meeting WP:V and WP:RS in regards to the sentence in dispute at the Intelligent Design article, "All leading proponents of Intelligent Design are affiliated with the Discovery Institute." The San Francisco Chronicle, August 28 2005 calls Norris Gravlox, "a leading proponent of the intelligent design theory" the Tribeca Film Festival calls Jack Cashill, "a leading proponent of intelligent design." The Orlando Weekly from September 1st 2005 calls Mat Staver, "leading proponent of teaching intelligent design in public schools" and on May 26, 2006, the Legal Times calls John Umana, "a leading proponent of intelligent design" establishing WP:V and WP:RS.Bagginator 05:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - October 2006
The October 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 20:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

request
Him, Ragesoss. Any chance of you getting an appropriate picture of Battell Chapel or Grove Street Cemetery, New Haven? - Nunh-huh 09:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, if you have any especially good Yale photos that need an article to go in, let me know :) - Nunh-huh 14:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent! - Nunh-huh 14:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Source for a quotation
Hi, Sage Ross. If it’s not too much hassle, I’d like to have the citation of the book you quoted *here*. I copied these quotations during a POV discussion at Criticism of Christianity (see Talk:Criticism of Christianity) and I think the first quotation may be inserted in the main article. On a side-note, I was the uploader of the current "History of Science Pic of the Week", it's cool to have something I contributed being appreciated :-) --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 18:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I think I'll finish my work on Thomas Hunt Morgan next. --Peta 01:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 11:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Aristotelian Physics
Thanks for your invitation to write a Wikipedia article on Aristotle's physics. However, as I conceive the matter, at most my relative 'expertise' is limited to Aristotle's dynamics, and I feel I am not qualified by sufficient study to comment authoritatively enough in an encyclopedia on such as his theory of matter or his theory of time and their interpretations, for example. (By the way, Patrick Suppes did his PhD thesis on Aristotle's theory of matter.)

I shall respond to your other points later. Apologies for being way behind in responses. Logicus 18:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Anecdotal cognitivism
I admit that I am not well versed in the boundaries of the social sciences, but I had always thought that they dealt with human behaviour and societies, and that the study of animal behaviour and societies was part of biology, namely ethology as a branch of zoology. Thus when I found that you had specified the category for Anecdotal cognitivism from Category:History of science to Category:History of social sciences, it caused me to question what I had heretofore believed. I was not helped by the definition at Social sciences that "the social sciences are groups of academic disciplines that study the human aspects of the world." Can you help me out here? Bejnar 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Novels WikiProject
As you are a member of the project would you be so kind and add our userbox somewhere on your userpage and this will automatically add you to the "Particiapants category" thanks ::  Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  13:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the excellent Yale photos (feel free to tinker with captions or placement in Grove Street Cemetery and Battell Chapel. If you ever plan on going to the cemetery again, I'd like to prevail on you for photos of some specific gravesites. - Nunh-huh 19:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They're for my personal benefit rather than for use here, and I don't think they'd be ones you have. Specifically, I'd like to see A. Bartlett Giamatt's and Nathaniel Jocelyn's. I'd probably have to e-mail you a map for the latter! - Nunh-huh 20:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Ah, thank you for voting for me last month in my RfA, and leaving a nice message! I've seen you around but never clicked on the name. In a few months, after I graduate, I'll have time to "prepare," and, *groan* visit xfD everyday. I was planning on nominating myself in the spring anyway, but since somebody else nominated me (while I was on Wikibreak) I suppose it couldn't hurt to accept. Do you have any tips or suggestions for me? Thanks again, X [' Mac Davis '] ( SUPERDESK | Help me improve ) 07:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Met
Nope never made it, busy weekend and all, maybe next time I get to NYC, there shold be some other good shots though.--Niro5 13:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VI - November 2006
The November 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
 Thank you for participating in my RfA discussion! I appreciate you contributing your voice to the debate and its outcome. I hope how I wield the mop makes you proud. Thanks! &mdash; Saxifrage

Cats and Dogs Portals
Hi, Ragesoss. If you can offer some tips on the respective portal talk pages about how to improve Cats and Dogs up to "featured" quality, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Rfrisbietalk 18:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin new portrait
Dear Ragesoss Thank you for your comments on our new Franklin portrait, and what actions we need to take to fit into Wikipedia's criteria.

We have uploaded another image:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rosalind_Franklin.jpg

We have used a Creative Commons License, and removed text.

We are professional artists, serious about our work in the art/science arena. We use our art to celebrate women scientist's achievements. Our work on Rosalind Franklin is used to raise awareness of ovarian cancer issues.

Kind regards Wyllie O Hagan

Thanks for helping us out with the Rosalind Franklin image
Dear Rageross Thank you for helping us out with the Rosalind Franklin image.

Can we confirm that the one and only Franklin image that Wikipedia will use is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rosalind_Franklin.jpg

which is the amended portrait without our text running down the side and bottom.

The very first one we uploaded- a screenprint with photo 51's down the side is appearing on the pages, could you delete that for us please.

We started doing this this morning, and it's nearly 2.00 am, it's well past my bedtime.

We are delighted to see our work featured in Wikpedia, and appreciate you doing this work, especially for Rosalind.

Franklin portrait
Dear Ragesoss

The portrait of Rosalind has changed to a photograph. When you click on the photo you are directed to:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rosalind_Franklin.jpg

I haven't been able to link to this.

Please advise, thank you

Rosalind Franklin picture
Thanks for your message, look forward to seeing Rosalind portrait in the article. Thank you also for the useful information on Wikipedia ways

Hi again
What has been changed since I got a message that I was eligible for the run of the arbitration committee ? Zekeriya

clarify
Thank you for clarification of the situation. I have just noticed that my contribution number is around 500.

Thanks for the heads up
Hi, thanks for letting me know about the History of Science project. I will try to participate when time permits!Ravenous75 02:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom questions for Paul August
Hi Ragesoss. I've answered your questions. Thanks for asking. Paul August &#9742; 20:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sci Rev dead ?
Hi Ragesoss. What's happening on the SR article ? Has Steve resigned ? Given no response to my last series of criticisms, various edits now required. Seems to me revolution knocked out as it stands. I cannot help reconstruct given I deny there was a revolution, but only help with accurate historical and logical analysis of the (non-revolutionary) developments in the centuries of interest. The main problem of standard 17th century revolutionism for mechanics is essentially Duhem's deconstruction of alleged key developments of the alleged 17th century scientific revolution into the 12th to 14th centuries that essentially still stands. Perhaps details of that should replace the final 'literary criticism' section you removed ? Anyway, article's surely in an appallingly confused 'nowhereland' state at the moment. Might be more educationally responsible to delete it entirely and put an 'article in construction' notice. Just an idea. Logicus 18:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Ragesoss and Logicus. I don't think the article's dead, althougn I agree that it still needs a lot of work.  I think the way to go is to continue with Ragesoss's stepwise agenda.  I suspect that many of us only have limited amounts of time to contribute.  --SteveMcCluskey 00:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ragesoos & Steve: So OK if I continue with some stepwise editing outstanding from various criticisms made in October, basically concerned with eliminating historical telescoping to create myth of a 16th/ 17th century revolution, given no revision from your quarters ? Eliminate Galen stuff next given your authority Grant says Avicenna dominant rather than Galen, again possibly telescoping ? Telescoping is basically trying to collapse all previous historical developments into 16th/17th century to create revolution image. Logicus 20:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.


 * is banned from editing articles which relate to science and pseudoscience. The term "pseudoscience" shall be interpreted broadly; it is intended to include but not be limited to all article in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories.
 * Tommysun and are placed on probation. They may be banned from any article or subject area which they disrupt by aggressive biased editing. All bans to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience.  * is banned from editing Eric Lerner, Plasma cosmology, Aneutronic fusion, and any pages, excepting talk pages, related to his real-life work.
 * is cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science. This applies in particular to matters of good faith and civility.

For the Arbitration committee. Thatcher131 02:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006
The December 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

NYC Meetup
Rage, nice to have finally met! -Reagle 16:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please thank your student
Who contributed the text for the history of geology article. I am sure it represents a significant amount of work on (his/her) part and I am glad to see that particular topic addressed. Rusty Cashman 08:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia assignment
Thank you for the note, yes, I am always very interested in such project, WP:SUP is fascinating.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Meetup NYC
Hey, just wanted to say hi and thank you for coming to the WikiMeetup in NYC this past weekend. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 04:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Barrett v. Rosenthal
Your comment about the concurrence was accurate. I have rewritten the article somewhat, including that as well as the main holding and points of the case. It was not evident from the previous writings why this is a 'landmark' case so I added that. It is the first published case interpreting section 230 as regarding an individua internetl user. It is late and I am starting to see cross-eyed, so I am going to watch the Daily Show. However, I would surely appreciate your comments. I also deleted the comment about liability re Barrett in this article, since it is irrelevant to this case.Jance 04:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Kepler
Hi,

Nice job on Kepler. As you guessed, I do have a few ideas that I'd like to add, specifically on the physical nature of his astronomy for the Astronomia Nova section. First I'll have to take a look at Koyré and Stephenson for a few details and citations.

Best wishes, take a break now that the semester is over. --SteveMcCluskey 22:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Prose by committee: Charles Darwin
I appreciate your comment. I would have personally preferred to just put references on Dave's original version, but more zealous people inevitably come along, and if you antagonise them too much, you won't get the camel through the gate at the end of the day (unless, I suppose, you antagonise them enough for them to leave...). Sadly, that is how Wikipedia works. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Article
Shoot; I just wasn't sure if you had finished it yet, since you hadn't left a message to that effect. Do you want me to add it in real quick, or just wait until next week? My only thing is that I know people have already started reading, so it might be better to save until next week, to increase readership. Ral315 (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahh, so I'm an idiot. Not surprising altogether, I suppose :)  It looks fine, and I'll publish next week.  My apologies.  Ral315 (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

H-Net
In case you hadn't noticed, H-Net has been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 20:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Why1991
Just replying telling you that I read your message and will make sure to clarify which picture I prefer. Thanks. -- ¿ Why  1  9  9  1  ESP. 03:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Image Size
Many of the images you are enlarging are natively smaller than the size you are specifying, resulting in ugly pixelation.--ragesoss 15:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me know of any you object to and I will find a higher res image to upgrade to. SuperGirl 11:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Club of New York
Come see: Wikipedia Club of New York. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 14:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Notification!
This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode!

Episode 10, lots of new stuff, read about it online and not in this talkpage spam message :)

Anyways, all is good now, here's the new episodes!


 * Episode 10 MP3
 * Episode 10 OGG

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 07:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.