User talk:SteveBaker/archive22

Reference desk question
Hi. I realized that a while ago, you decided to leave the Wikipedia reference desk because it was "no longer fun". However, I see that you still edit our encyclopedia to some extent. I would cordially invite you to visit today's question I asked (you can't miss it), since it's possible you may have some knowledge of this unusual topic. Thanks. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 14:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't know much about this subject. If it helps, the frequencies of the standard musical scale is given in the graph below:


 * Music frequency diatonic scale-3.svg


 * SteveBaker (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Semantic MediaWiki
Hi SteveBaker,

I saw that the Wikipedia Signpost mentioned this today: Semantic MediaWiki. I wanted to point you to it because I remember you've written about the semantic web on the RD various times but I don't remember you having pointed that out before. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'd already seen that project - it'll be interesting to see if Wikipedia picks it up (or at least does something similar). SteveBaker (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration
Hi, following up your comment regarding the article title of Sega Genesis and Mega Drive, what arbitration methods are available and suitable for something like this? I've had no experience of any of that kind of thing on WP, so thought it best to ask someone in the know. If you'd like to propose it on the discussion there please do, or just let me know and I'll have a go. Cheers,  Mi re ma re   16:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I'm no expert.


 * That said: Requests for mediation/Guide is an overview of the formal processes of mediation. The final resort appears to be the Arbitration Committee - which can resolve disputes - binding all parties to abide by whatever they decide, perhaps resulting in neither side getting what they want!  However, that may be rather heavy-handed to start with - so consider Third opinion or Requests for comment or Mediation Cabal (which suggests techniques to help the editors involved to come to agreement between themselves without imposing new opinions).  If the parties involved can't even agree on which way to go then you could post informally on: Dispute resolution noticeboard - or formally on Requests for mediation and Mediation Committee.  There are even more possibilities than this if one specific editor is being 'difficult' - you can ask for an editor review...yet more stuff is possible. SteveBaker (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * ArbCom only rules on conduct issues, not content. Unless there's edit-warring, personal attacks, etc., there's little ArbCom can do, and even then, they can't decide the article name for us.  Third opinion is for when there are only 2 editors in the dispute.  Honestly, Wikipedia doesn't have a good dispute resolution process.  Try Dispute resolution noticeboard, Requests for comment, Requests for mediation or Mediation Committee.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, the applicable policy is Article titles. You can also ask at that policy's talk page for guidance. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the correction. As I said, I'm no expert on this particular corner of Wikipedia's byzantine policy/guideline/cabal stuff!  As I understand it, there has been a certain degree of edit-warring over the name change - but the present name came about as a result of a compromise that had a majority !vote - but not what I'd call "consensus".  Unfortunately, the compromise does not meet the most basic requirement of Article titles - which is "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, Wikipedia chooses among them by considering five principles: the ideal article title will resemble titles for similar articles, precisely identify the subject, be short, be natural, and recognizable.".  It does not resemble titles for similar articles, it isn't short or natural.  Sadly, there does need to be some kind of intervention here because this compromise solution should never have happened.  We really need for some higher power to step in, look at all the evidence and say "We're going to choose title 'X' and make title 'Y' be a redirect because 'X and Y' is not acceptable and 'X' is (albeit extremely marginally) better than 'Y'."...and then to lock the article from subsequent page moves.  I don't know how to make that happen. SteveBaker (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks both for the replies. I already posted at Wikipedia talk:Article titles and the village pump policy talk page with links to the WT:VG discussion in the hope of getting some new people to comment (it's here in case anyone else is reading!), and while the few new commenters have all been against the new title and there's only two people active supporting it, some others have been quite vehemently "anti-discussion" thinking that it's better to forget about it than to decide between the two. I think this creates the kind of atmosphere where it looks like I'm just trying to piss off the regulars by stirring up trouble where all is otherwise calm, unless a reasonable number of uninvolved people can be got to respond, which seems to be a difficult thing to achieve. FYI there was also an RFC at the article talk page directly after the original move request, and again it only attracted two or three uninvolved people, and then there's the tendency of these things to dissolve into the same old squabbling anyway. I think it's clear there's no consensus for the title as it stands, but I can't see there being one for either of the alternatives now either, so I'm a bit out of ideas. :/  Mi re ma re   02:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, for what it's worth, I strongly agree that this is worth pursuing. The compromise title is completely unacceptable under Article titles and the people who agreed on it were clearly in error in doing so - although I certainly recognize that they did this with the best possible intentions as a way to peacefully end a nasty conflict.  However, it does need to be fixed.  As to which of the two former titles should be chosen, I have no opinion.  Article titles suggests five principles to help you choose: recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency.  But all of those seem to apply equally to both titles - hence the original difficulty.  All that Article titles has to say on that is that one should attain consensus - but that has clearly failed.  It suggests using the Search engine test to determine the most common usage - but as I understand it, that is in some dispute here.  From the perspective of an outsider such as myself, I really don't think it matters which title is chosen.  There will be a redirect from the other title - and both names for the console will be mentioned in the very first few words of the article lede.  There is no possible confusion or difficulty in readers finding the article or confirming that they have gotten to the correct article, despite the (perhaps) surprising title.  Honestly, I think flipping a coin would be the best answer here! SteveBaker (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

He's at it again...
Within less than a week of the semi-protection tag expiring, the Self-Replicating Machine page has once again been spammed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-replicating_machine&action=historysubmit&diff=455804962&oldid=455524260

I suggest we make the semi-protection permanent.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calcyman (talk • contribs) 15:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, that degree of protection was working well. SteveBaker (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail
Feel free to ignore it. It might already be obsolete. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Lenna - they are at it again
Any inputs you might have at File_talk:Lenna.png would be welcome. PAR (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Carbuncle
Had to look it up... LOL! --Born2cycle (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I serve here merely to disseminate human knowledge - and this way also counts! See also: Carbuncle (gemstone) - kinda contradictory, I always thought! SteveBaker (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah ha! I was thinking of the gemstone (My only knowledge of the word having come from Sherlock Holmes) and didn't really understand what you meant. I wondered if you meant that the compromise was a distracting temptation like a gemstone. APL (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * :-) No, no, I'm pretty sure that I'm referring to the ugly, oozing, painful sore that doesn't heal very quickly, leaves a permanent scar and spreads like wildfire if you don't treat it properly! (Eeek!  I've really gotta remember not to look at the photos when reading Wikipedia articles about skin diseases!) SteveBaker (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

MD vs SG
I suspect the answer to the confusion you expressed there is that, unlike a car, in this case cherished childhood memories are at stake. Anything you learned when you were 10 is obvious, and therefore anyone challenging it must have an agenda. (As for me, I was amusing myself with an AppleII and a 286 during that time period.) APL (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a TRS-80 Model I...so I know where you're coming from. But I restore classic cars too - and I can tell you that "car people" are every bit as fanatical about the cars they drove (or their father/elder brother drove) in their youth as Genesis/MegaDrive owners are.  But none the less, we come to agreement pretty quickly.  But there is no doubt that this dispute could have been ended much more quickly if the compromise title hadn't come along. SteveBaker (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Your argument
I generally agree with your sentiment in this post, but I have an honest question that I've been asking a lot and don't want to repeat again on that thread: what evidence do you have that actually supports the idea of the "Mega Drive" as the commonname (not what problems do you have with the evidence for the Genesis)? I feel that I've proven that (a) google scholar and google books produce results for Genesis of, at a minimum, 700% to 1000% more than the Mega Drive; (b) standard google hits produce results of between 49% and over 250% more for Genesis than Mega Drive, (c) sales figures favor the Genesis, (d) the RSs in the article now favor the Genesis; (e) news results favor the Genesis. Sure, people have criticized the methods of each of these, though no one has offered (i) better methods; or (ii) results that show that the Mega Drive is favored in any of these categories.

Perhaps I am not AGFing, but I believe that personal opinions have made people ignore WP policy on naming to justify the title that their nostalgia (or English language insecurities) dictate for them. If we followed policy from the start, this would have been a no-brainer. But I am repeating myself yet again.LedRush (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have evidence for either Mega Drive or Sega Genesis as the preferred common name. I actually don't even have a particular preference - other than to reinforce the growing majority.  I do know that they were both in very common usage - I'm British, and a computer game programmer (although I've never owned either console).  But "Sega Genesis" is definitely something I'd heard of.  But for me, it's pretty much a wash which one we choose.  It's not necessary to have the 100% perfect choice of those two names for the title.  A 60/40 or even a 40/60 choice is perfectly adequate here.  Wikipedia is quite clear when you type Mega Drive into the search box and arrive at Sega Genesis that this is a synonym - you get the "(Redirected from...)" thing and (hopefully) a lede sentence that says "The Sega Genesis - also known as the Mega Drive - is a...".  Having the 40% perfect choice of the two names doesn't hurt the encyclopedia at all...not in the least.  Having the compromise name opens the doors to massive chaos in articles as diverse as the Harry Potter book series, the names of mushrooms and the names of badge-engineered cars.   We are not equipped to make that decision - the debate about that belongs on WP:TALK. SteveBaker (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. My point is about comments you make which seem to indicate that WP:Commonname does not point to any particular article name.  You may be concerned about the precedent for "and" titles, but I am more concerned with the precedent for interpreted commonname to mean something other than what it actually says.  And while choosing, I would argue that choosing a name that (in your example) comes up 33% less than another (or in my research as listed on the talk page shows, somewhere between 7-15 times less in reliable sources) does hurt the encyclopedia.  Obviously, we weight the ills of not following our interpretations of WP policy differently, but I just don't know how people can say that WP:Commonname doesn't point to one article name or another when so much evidence has been given for one name, and literally no evidence (to my knowledge) has been given to support the other.LedRush (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:COMMONNAMES says When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. - so there is precedent for not choosing the most common if there is some other reason (like geographical coverage or prevalence in reliable sources to use one of the other "fairly common" names instead. I'm not saying that either of those things are true for Mega Drive - but it is certainly OK to pick a "fairly common" name that isn't absolutely the most common.  Both Mega Drive and Sega Genesis meet the "fairly common" criteria in my opinion.  But I don't know whether the arguments for or against either of the two current titles are dominant.  Truly, I think it's a wash.  There simply isn't enough evidence on either side to make me a body-and-soul convert to either of those titles.  I just want us to be rid of the compromise title, once and for all - for the good of the encyclopedia in general more than for the good of this one article in particular. SteveBaker (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I just don't know where you come up with the idea the evidence is somehow a "wash". There is tons of evidence for the Genesis, verifiable, and literally nothing for the Mega Drive.  All the proponents of the other name has done is argue that the evidence for the Genesis might not be as overwhelming as all the evidence suggests it is.  If there were problems with the Genesis being the name, that's one thing.  But no one has yet made that argument (and prevalence in Reliable Sources is how Commonname directs you to choose the common name...it isn't an argument against the most commonname).LedRush (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you may be right - and I did !vote for Sega Genesis so I'm not actually disagreeing with you - I'm just not actively agreeing. But to be honest - I'd rather back away from those arguments and leave them to the long-term editors of the article with their greater subject-matter knowledge.  My only concern is to get rid of the compromise title because of the wider implications for Wikipedia's article naming conventions as a whole.  If we could only get a simple consensus to defeat the present title and replace it with either of the more obvious titles - then I'd be more than happy to recuse myself from choosing which of them it is - or to stick around and dispassionately examine the evidence from both camps.  As far as I'm concerned, both names are common enough to serve as the title and I simply don't care which of the two 'wins' because the consequences of choosing the wrong one are so negligable given how good Wikipedia's redirection system is. SteveBaker (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand completely. I, however, read Commonname as coming to a very specific conclusion, and will oppose a solution which ignores that.LedRush (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Again: When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. - you most certainly don't have to pick the most common name of all if there are 'problems' with that most common of all name. Now, "problems' is a vague thing...but you have to concede that this statement flat out says that being the most common name of all isn't a slam-dunk guarantee that this name must be chosen.  Life would be much easier if it were. SteveBaker (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a gurantee, but all parties have agreed that it answers the core questions as well or better than any other name, so I don't know what "problems" there could be. And seeing as there isn't just a significant majority of english language reliable sources calling the console the Genesis, but a staggeringly overwhelming number, we are severely perverting Wikipedia policies by not having "Genesis" in the title.  As I've said before, in all the naming disputes I've been a part of, never have I seen a more clear case of what name Commonname points to than this one.LedRush (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why you can't win that argument on the Internet
I haven't been watching the Sega naming debate too closely, but a couple weeks ago I read the following article and found it fascinating:

The Backfire Effect

I think you might like it, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Lenna
See. I used your picture, it gets the point across very well, I hope you don't mind. Cheers—Ruud 15:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that SchuminWeb promptly deleted your right on point "Conclusions" re the Lenna file (the 512x512px version of which I had reuploaded after he deleted and refused to restore it), however I have taken the liberty to quote a few of the most cogent lines from your posting in my own final comment in another forum here that SchuminWeb started which falsely claims that one of my image files is a "derivative work", a favorite ploy of his. I hope it does some good, but alas I rather doubt it will. Cheers. Centpacrr (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I can see a couple of bullet points under ADMINACCT that seem to apply here - but I think it would be necessary to show a pattern of behavior amounting to "repeated/consistent poor judgement" and "failure to communicate". I agree that is was blindingly obvious that both you and I were correct about the images that this admin sought to delete and I'm not at all happy about the standards of justification and communication we each got from him.  In my case, the "shoot first and ask questions later" approach was particularly annoying in the face of clear prior consensus - which certainly amounts to poor judgement.  The fact that both the attempt to resize the image and the subsequent (petulant) attempt to delete it were overturned unanimously certainly attests to poor judgement.  I guess that filing an WP:RFC/U would be the next step.  I'd be happy to support such an action but only if you can find at least a couple of other cases where his judgement and communications skills have been similarly bad.  It would be necessary to show a pattern of behavior - because, after all - we all have our 'off' days. SteveBaker (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this will answer your question. I have been having problems with this Admin off and on for at least a year and for the last two weeks he has been relentlessly Wikistalking me as detailed in the comment linked at "this" in the first sentence above. (Click on the several links contained in that comment for detailed examples.) One of this admin's more egregious and arbitrary tactics in my view is to target non free files, unilaterally delete them from all articles in which they are used (usually claiming they are "decorative", "unencyclopedic", "not discussed in the article", "not required", or the really off the wall "one of these probably still exists someplace so go take a picture of it yourself"), delete the "fair use" rationales from the image file's host page, and then add a "speedy deletion" tag as their being "orphaned non-free" files (which he had just "orphaned") that would lead to administrative removal without their ever going through the open "Files For Deletion" process to seek community consensus for his unilateral actions to get them permanently removed from WP. He has done this most recently to many dozens of historic railroad photographs by Otto Perry from by the Denver Public Library, but these wonderful images are hardly his only "victim" image files.


 * He also never addresses any points brought up in discussions that mitigate against his views but instead just repeats his dogma, accuses the other participant of making the discussion "about him as a person", and then ends it with something like "Nothing doing. I am not withdrawing this nomination, since I know I'm right, and as I have stated my arguments on this matter, I don't see the need to waste my time arguing with you about it. You're going to throw two or three paragraphs below this saying that I'm wrong, wrong, wrong, and what an "utterly" (your favorite word, apparently) horrible person that I am for being so wrong as you see it, but I'm not arguing with you about this one anymore. I have made my case, and I can now rest it. Good day to you." (Emphasis added)


 * Please See the discussions here and here for two current examples of his general approach and let me know what you think. Thanks. Centpacrr (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * OK - let me rephrase that...I'd like to see a couple more examples where you were not personally involved. The difficulty is that this guy repeatedly accuses you of having a long history of incorrectly (whatever) uploaded images.  I don't know (or particularly care) whether that's true or not - but it shouldn't matter here.  You don't want the RfC/U to become totally derailed to become a matter of YOUR history as an editor - and that's what'll happen if you don't find at least a couple of other people who have been treated equally badly/incorrectly.  My example is a good one, since you were not involved in it - but "repeated/consistent poor judgement" is the standard and "twice" doesn't meet that standard.  So if you wish to keep the debate focussed on the failings of this admin, then you'll need at least a couple more clear-cut and not-Centpacrr-related issues.  That would mean trawling back through months of user contributions to see if there have been other problematic matters in which you were not involved.  SteveBaker (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I posted these because they are the ones with which I am currently familiar. I'll take a look around tonight and see what else I can find. I don't imagine it will take me too long. Centpacrr (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Blacklight Power
re: I'm sorry I removed the trolling material. I just couldn't figure out how it was related to improving the article. The section essentially moans about deleting the article because original research says it is not real. The other section I deleted is essentially the same kind of trolling only more vulgar. I don't approve of plastering talk pages with bullshit, it annoys me having to read it. But if you feel we lost something important there I was wrong to remove it. Sorry about that. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that YOU judge this as bullshit - but the guy who posted it evidently didn't. So it's your opinion against his.  It's rude to presume that you are in the right to such a degree that nobody else should be allowed to read what he wrote - we don't need you to censor our incoming mail for us!  If you delete that material then you are denying the rest of us the right to make up our own minds and either (a) support his view, (b) suggest ways to compromise or (c) point out where he's wrong.  As WP:TALK says: "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." - this is a pretty rare thing.  If it's bullshit, then other right-thinking editors will agree with you.  You say "it annoys me having to read it" - but you had to read it before deleting it - so that's an entirely bogus argument.  So, please don't delete other people's post again - except (perhaps) in the most egregious circumstances and only after some discussion on the talk page. SteveBaker (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I judge this as bullshit and you objected to it. The content was then restored. This is how the process should work. You don't even have to provide a reason why you want to keep the sections.


 * Removal of off-topic, uncivil, unclear, or otherwise distracting material Refactoring_talk_pages

Sample of material entitled "Article Needs Deletion":


 * "This article is good in that it shows how scammers can gain $ for idiotic and completely Wrong ideas.. But.. There needs to be clear demarcation about what is real and what is pseudoscience (fantasy-fiction).. This article is TOO NEUTRAL and needs to be clearer about the fringe-fantasy-idiocy aspects of the 'theory'/BS.. As the person says above, Wikipedia is complicit and encouraging FRAUD by publicizing this BS .. MAKE THIS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR or delete the article.. PARTICIPATE IN FRAUD or make ABSOLUTELY CLEAR IT'S FRAUD - only ONE OR THE OTHER"

84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not in the case of talk pages. They don't work by you deleting other people's comments then the rest of us having to trawl through the history to read them.  That's how things work in article space - but not on talk pages. SteveBaker (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Who the heck is Steve Baker?
Who the heck is Steve Baker? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.57.246 (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Er...he's me! Please feel free to check out my user page User:SteveBaker - which says a lot about me, also you'll find a link to my personal web site and my own personal Wiki.  In the toolbox links to your left, you can see all 23,000 contributions I've made to this site and also find a way to send me a personal email.  If that doesn't answer what you need to know, please feel free to ask. SteveBaker (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I might ask for an Editor Review of Steve Baker. He's reverting my edit against the 3-revert rule — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.57.246 (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, you can ask for such a review - I'd be happy to participate. My editing history here at Wikipedia is 100% clean - after six and a half years and 23,000 edits, I've never once been blocked, banned or officially sanctioned in any way - so I doubt I'm going to get smacked around too badly by the reviewers.  At any rate, I only performed one revert of your change today - so I'm in the clear.  On the other hand, you re-re-re-deleted that paragraph about perpetual motion - and that's strictly contrary to Wikipedia guidelines - which could get you (at a minimum) a temporary block from our site.  I thought it best to warn you about that as a friendly gesture to avoid you getting yourself into deeper trouble. SteveBaker (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

My gosh what is wikipedia full of? barnstorming skeptics and flakey scientists? I removed a sentence about something being perpetual motion and someone took offence to that. Who deemed the waterfuel cell of stanley meyer perpetual motion? I'd like to meet that person and try to understand them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.57.246 (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is based in sources. You are removing a sentence that is sourced to journal Nature. You aren't giving any reason for doing so, just your opinion. If you think that the source is being misrepresented, or you have reliable sources that contradict it, then you can discuss it at Talk:Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell (the talk page of the article). --Enric Naval (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Who says the journal Nature is a reliable source of anything? "Reliable source" is not an attribute of journal publications; they're just journals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.57.246 (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I notice the "reliable source" for the claim that the waterfuel cell is perpetual motion is some columnist named Phillip Ball. Who the heck is he when he's at home? I don't know how the Stanley Meyer article can claim Phillip Ball as a "reliable source," of anything! (122.57.57.246 (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
 * Nature is pretty much the gold standard as a reliable source. It has different sections which vary as to being primary, secondary or tertiary sources, but it is generally considered supremely reliable as a fact-checked source on what informed people think about any given field. You will not get far if your argument is that we should be ignoring work published in that journal. You will need to find equally (or nearly as) reliable sources to contradict Nature. Franamax (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Nature is only a reliable source in your books Franamax. I don't have to consider it a reliable source of anything, or as a "gold standard" (says who?) of anything either. I choose to question this Phillip Ball guy as a "reliable source" on water fuel cells as is my right. Has he seen and tested the invention for himself for instance? That would be a good start! (122.57.57.246 (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
 * Umm, newsflash: you have precisely two "rights" at this site, the right to fork a version and the right to leave permanently. Everything else is a privilege, and that privilege can be revoked if you edit in a disruptive way. If you dispute that Nature is reliable, or that Ball is a reliable writer for Nature, then you need to discuss it at the reliable sources noticeboard. You are free to still think it's not reliable after you are told resoundingly that "yes it is reliable" - but you are not free to continue with disruptive edits. Take your problem to the appropriate noticeboard rather than continue to pursue this editor. Franamax (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You know, all of this was already discussed months ago in Talk:Stanley_Meyer's_water_fuel_cell. If the edit warring continues, the article should be protected. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hang on Franamax. who said my edits were "disruptive" (lol aren't you a card) when all they do is highlight the ongoing dispute amongst people over stanley's water fuel cell. And who's going t6o tell me that Phillip Bell is "resoundingly reliable?" Is this a numbers game of "we have 10 people who say he is reliable and one who doesn't so the ten are right?" Like what? lol. That's how you decide things on wikipedia? (122.57.57.246 (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC))
 * Please indent your posts when replying on talk pages, using a colon character for each level of indenting, it makes the conversation easier to read for other reviewers (and is not mandatory, just helpful).  Your approach to this issue is unnecessarily combative, both in your edit-warring and your aggressive approach here. You could be suggesting that the polemical style in Ball's piece makes it a tertiary and thus less desirable source, i.e it is an opinion piece. Instead you are charging around insiting on your own definition of reliability, including a provocative section header here. That's what I call disruptive, and note that I haven't yet warned you formally (which would be on your talk page) - but you need to settle down and address your specific suggestions for the content, not just question all editors and assumptions. Franamax (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Naw. Wikipedia is not the place for me. I haven't time to dispute the whole "reliable source" question in the appropriate forums; I'm not here to right all of Wikipedia's wrongs. I'm just here for the day. (122.57.57.246 (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC))


 * I do have a question though. Is there anywhere in the article I can add to that brings into highlight a dispute over the reliability of sources? Actually don't bother. I already know the answer, lol (122.57.57.246 (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC))
 * The answer is that you can find other reliable sources which present a different narrative, and work them into a balanced presentation of "reality" as best as any human being can perceive it, given all the facts. We're always open to discussions of reliability for individual cites, and I gave you a pretty blatant hint just above. But hey, you already know all the answers, so I suppose I won't bother any more, as you suggest... Franamax (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "We're always open to discussions of reliability for individual cites,"


 * I thought that's sort of what I was doing but the problems go beyond this singlular article. However I did read somewhere on here that wikipedia isn't about getting to the truth and just about noting the puported facts of the day according to the puported authoritative sources of the day.
 * (122.57.57.246 (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC))
 * You probably read it right here at WP:TRUTH. That essay explains official policy. APL (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope, not there. It was another wikipedia page were noone tries to differentiate a "simple fact" as something different to the truth. If it's a simple fact, then it's the truth. That wasn't an official wikipedia page was it? (122.57.57.246 (talk) 09:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC))

The question you raise is one of what constitutes "truth" and who is the final arbiter of "truth". This is a core issue for Wikipedia because if both we - and our readership - fail to understand what "truth" is - then all we have is a random collection of some three million writings by a hundred thousand authors. For that reason, we have developed a standard for what Wikipedia considers to be true for the purposes of writing articles. The standard is that every contentious statement has to be backed up by one or more reliable sources. In this case, that reliable source is an article in Nature magazine. Nature is by far the most respected source for scientific papers in the entire world. I agree that we didn't look into who the author "Phillip Bell" is - or what he does. That's because Nature is trusted to have done that for us. The editors of that magazine do fact checking and peer review. Mr Bell's article will have been read by a number of respectable scientists in that field of study who will have put that article under the microscope. The fact that an article is published in Nature is as solid a definition for "truth" as we can devise.

Now, it is certainly the case that Nature makes mistakes. Hence, if there are other, similarly respectable sources that say "No, we've checked and Meyers' machine isn't perpetual motion" - then we'll publish those views here too. If there were to be an enormous howl of protest from dozens of other respectable science journals about the Nature article, then we might choose to ignore Nature and delete that paragraph from our article. But that hasn't happened. Hence, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is a noteworthy fact that Meyer's machine is a perpetual motion machine - and therefore cannot function as claimed because of the laws of thermodynamics. This may or may not be a true statement about the real world - but it is definitely a statement that passes Wikipedia's test of what is true.

Now - the problem here is not that you deleted that paragraph. That's OK, we have rules here like "Be Bold" and "Ignore all rules" (where doing so makes the encyclopedia better). However, we don't tolerate people who repeatedly remove things. You removed that paragraph four times - and four different editors replaced it. That should tell you that you're in the wrong. We have a rule that says "You may revert a change up to three times in one 24 hour period and that's it". When you break that rule, the odds are very high that an admin will come along and block your account from editing here. If you break the rule again - the odds are good that they'll lock you out of editing here for a month. If you break it again, you'll probably get a lifetime ban on ever editing Wikipedia again. We take 'disruptive editing' very seriously here.

In future, when you don't like something in an article, think rather carefully before removing it. Ask yourself: "Is this statement backed up by some kind of reliable source? Is it a notable matter?  Does it say something about the subject of this article?" - and if it does, you almost certainly shouldn't remove it. If you still think it should be removed - go ahead and remove it - that's just fine. However, if some other editor re-instates it - then you should go to the 'talk' page for that article and explain why you think you're right and the other guy is wrong. It might be useful to say why you think the article is now incorrect (eg "Meyers' machine isn't a perpetual motion machine because it takes its' power from invisible pink unicorns.") - but that alone won't generally win the argument for you. The most powerful statement attesting to the removal of some fact would be that it's not reliably sourced (per Wikipedia's rules - not per your ideas of what you personally consider true) - or that it's not a notable fact about the subject of the article. Then we'll engage in a (hopefully) civil discussion about it - and if you can sway most of the other editors' opinions to agree with yours then we'll happily remove that section and nobody will revert that change.

However, just repeatedly changing the article to be the way you want it to be - despite many editors disagreeing with you will simply get you kicked off of this web site forever...you don't have a 'right' to edit here...quite the opposite in fact.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I couldn't disagree more. It is very easy for whole social groups (in this case "science") to be wrong. Look at the Christians - over 2 billion of them, all wrong. Large numbers agreeing with you does not necessarily make you right, or even make you more likely to be right.
 * "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." - Wikipedia (122.57.57.246 (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC))
 * The only Christians who have to worry about being wrong are the ones still living when the world ends and it's the wrong God showing up to do it, they'll have some asplainin' to do. :) You are free to disagree, but SteveBaker's advice to you above is spot on. I was lucky enough once to be sitting in on a meeting with about $900/hour of legal power in the room (lucky 'cause I wasn't the one paying for it) and get this advice: "You have to understand that for a judge, there is no such thing as truth. There is just two sets of conflicting statements, and the judge has to sort through them and decide which version is more believable." Here on Wikipedia, we do it by consulting the sources, and we look for the highest quality of source that we can find. That process works for us, and while you may be dissatisied with it, you can't be disruptive in your objections. And I think you are wrong to label "science" as a monolithic deluded group, I doubt there's a physicist in the world who wouldn't want to publish a definitive proof that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong. And when that happens, we'll include it in our articles. Franamax (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the place for me if your analogy of a "judge" choosing the more "believable" between conflicting statements is it's determining publishing factor. I'll leave you guys to it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.57.246 (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that is not my analogy. I used that real-life example to draw attention to just how nebulous the concept of "truth" can be. Lots of people seem to be claiming possession of it. But we don't sit as "guilty/not-guilty" judges here at all, we sift through the evidence and hash out how best to present it. The main advice is at our verifiability, reliable sourcing, neutrsl POV and undue weight guidance pages. A lot of work goes on here to get things right - register an account and put some article talk pages on your watchlist, you'll see. Honest. :) Franamax (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes Wikipedia spends a lot of time on doing and being those things, so what's the assessment of the success of the project?(122.57.57.246 (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC))


 * The assessment is that we're the fifth most popular site on the internet - and the largest repository of human knowledge in the known universe. SteveBaker (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * lol, not quite what I meant(122.57.57.246 (talk) 06:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)