User talk:WAS 4.250/Archive 08

Reverts on WP:V
The page has only just been unprotected, could you discuss this on the talk page and hopefully avoid re-protection? Addition or removal of this summary of another policy isn't a big issue surely? Tim Vickers 18:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take it off my watchpage for now to avoid any possible problem. WAS 4.250 18:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:V opinion request
Hi there, do you have an opinion on which of these formulations of a paragraph in this policy is preferable? Tim Vickers 16:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Factory farming RfM
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests_for_mediation/factory_farming, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Jav43 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

--I don't see any other course of action at this point. Jav43 17:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

ff rfm edits
I did list all those people for a reason, you know :P How about letting them remove themselves if they wish to, and otherwise leaving them listed? Jav43 17:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Erm. Is there a particular reason why you're changing the full content of that rfm? Jav43 17:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed it to something that has a chance in hell of being useful. WAS 4.250 17:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * huh? Could you be a little more explicit?  Jav43 17:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have names on it of people who won't agree to participate it won't be accepted so that is a pointless exersize. And keeping it to just issues on one article keeps the debate manageable. I won't edit the page again tho. So do as you think best. WAS 4.250 18:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi WAS 4.250. I restored the information you removed at Requests for mediation/factory farming. Jav43 is entitled to formulate the request as he/she sees fit. If you disagree with mediation, you can post so here. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 18:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Jreferee. This is a wiki. I communicated what I thought it should look like by editing it in standard wiki fashion. As you did after me. Cool? Cool. WAS 4.250 18:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries, mate. : ) --  Jreferee  (Talk) 04:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you personally accept the mediation in its original form? Jav43 18:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I will accept informal mediation but not formal mediation. Do it without me and do it only for the factory farming article. I have no problem with never editing the factory farming article but I will not acccept, short of arbcom, any negating of my right to create agriculture articles as I see fit. WAS 4.250 18:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole point of the mediation is that it isn't binding. Jav43 18:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the mediation is not binding - it's only "formal" in the sense that we requested someone who might be qualified to mediate - I don't quite understand how your objection is relevant. Could you help me out?  Jav43 18:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * When I asked Slim about that on the ff talk page she said it can be held against them if it goes to arbcom. WAS 4.250 18:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What was meant is that your own statements can be held against you. The mediator makes no "decision", no "ruling", etc. - the mediator only facilitates discussion.  Does that make more sense?  Jav43 18:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is what you remember: .  Slimvirgin is talking about going back on a negotiated agreement to which one had agreed.  That is clearly different than being bound by some random "mediator"'s ruling.  Mediation is about finding a neutral party to try to get everyone else to agree - it's not about telling you what to do.  Jav43 18:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My consent is not required for someone to mediate. If someone wishes to mediate then they should go ahead and mediate. If you wish to get someone to help you fine. Go ahead. I don't have a problem. You and slim have a problem. If slim deletes agriculture pages then I'll have a problem. Until she does, I do not have a problem. So leave me out. WAS 4.250 18:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that your consent *is* required for someone to mediate, since the mediator wants to be sure they're getting into some type of civil discussion, rather than an incivil disruptive war of vandalism. Jav43 18:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree to not edit the factory farming article. You don't need more than that to get a mediation on the factory farming article. WAS 4.250 19:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucratship again
Hello! In September 2005 you indicated your desire to be notified if and when I was nominated for bureaucratship again. As per your comment, I'm letting you know that I'm up for bureaucratship for the third and final time at Requests for bureaucratship/Andrevan3, and your opinion would be welcome. It has been a while, so if you're no longer interested, I apologize and understand. Cheers, Andre (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced
I made a post to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability that you might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fitness landscape
I don't see how any of the articles (habitat, ecological niche or fitness landscape) are substitutes for an organism's environment. Niche comes that closest, but niche is just as much about what the organism does as it is about it's environment. Having said that, the article is in pretty terrible condition for a top-importance ecology article, and it would probably be better just to work on that first. I don't know that much about fitness landscapes, so I can't be of much help right now, though I'll try to go over the subject soon. Richard001 10:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahhhh. Not knowing "that much about fitness landscapes" explains your comments about "perfection". WAS 4.250 10:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money (disambiguation)
Hi. I just moved this because it seemed like the new title was what it was actually disambiguating, but I probably should have asked you about it first. Sorry if my move was wrong.--P4k 23:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:V timing issues
Just to let you know, I agree with your reasonable points regarding the benefit of clarifying "timing" under WP:V. What I do not find beneficial, however, is any attempt to clarify this issue that does not take into full consideration the complications involved with spelling it out and defining what it actually means.

Since the policy text is silent on "appropriate timing" (and the only instance where it is not silent is the implicit instance where *immediate* removal is considered appropriate) it seems improper to add "timing" considerations under the guise of "clarifying existing policy".

This change may indeed be necessary and proper, but let's make sure we recognize this fact, and put the matter to full discussion, so that no one can claim to be "surprised" or "caught off guard" when it comes time to uphold the terms of the policy in the context of a specific dispute. Thanks for your consideration. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 18:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please quote the exact words that I added that you think do not reflect consensus behavior at wikipedia. WAS 4.250 18:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll admit that it swings both ways, but the main purpose of a policy is to guide people on what to do, not to describe what people currently do. SamBC 18:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No has objected to the actual content of my last edit. WAS 4.250 19:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not sure that's true... in fact I'd say it wasn't. I'd say that no-one objected to the intent of the edits in question. SamBC 19:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I think SamBC is right on point here. It seems strange to say "the purpose of my edit has consensus, even if the wording itself is admittedly flawed" ... especially for WP policy pages. dr.ef.tymac 00:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are the only one who said what is in your quote marks Mr. Liar. WAS 4.250 11:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't quoting you, I was paraphrasing, using my own words to interpret: diffThe substance has consensus and the exact wording can be worked out by normal wiki editing
 * True, you never expressly admitted the wording is "flawed", but that admission is reasonably implied from the language: "can be worked out" (if it were flawless, then what is there to "work out"?)
 * Hope that resolves your misunderstanding, if so, happy I could help. dr.ef.tymac 14:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: by the way, "work out" is also a paraphrase of the wording "worked out" ... not a direct quote. Take a look at Scare quotes if you require further insight. dr.ef.tymac 14:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
No, I'm not setting myself up as judge, jury and jail keeper and at no point in my message did I state anything to that effect. I merely wanted to ask all participants to consider using the talk page rather than overheat a page that had already suffered far too much from protection and disruption. If you believe my tone was threatening, then I apologise, but I would ask you to consider the fact that you were perhaps misreading me. My intent was an impassioned plea to all editors to consider engaging. I was attempting to be neutral and try and do the right thing. You can rest assured I have learnt my lesson. If I am reading you correctly then it appears you feel established editors need to be handled differently. I'll try and work out another way in future. Take it easy. Steve block Talk 21:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has always worked as a reputation based workspace. WAS 4.250 11:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You'd think so, but the way my message was received I'm not so sure. Steve block Talk 16:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OR/Synthesis
I think I just repeated what you said on the NOR talk page discussion, just wanted to make sure it didn't look like I was disagreeing with you...just backing up what you said. Dreadstar †  21:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the edits on the IMTA page. Much appreciated. Looks great! Cheers, ReidGK 12:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Bleep OR straw poll
There is a straw poll being conducted on the Bleep OR issue. Your input is welcome. Dreadstar †  16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Requests for mediation/Factory farming. For the Mediation Committee, User:Daniel 12:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

the w thing
Hey WAS, understand about the capitalisation change. Sorry to stuff that up, thought it was just a leftover formatting article from a copy/paste from the original. I'd generally just leave the capitalisation as it was as it's fairly obvious that it's a quote. Not sure on what wikipedia's policy is on quoting though.. So whatever you think works best. NathanLee 00:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. WAS 4.250 02:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Factory farming NPA warning
Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. This warning is for this edit. --John 19:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How would you have said it? WAS 4.250 19:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have. Your (or my) opinions of why another editor wants or doesn't want to do something is utterly irrelevant. Making personal attacks on other editors merely contributes to an atmosphere of conflict, without offering any advantages in return. Please confine yourself to making positive contributions in future; we are trying to build an encyclopedia and bickering with others does not aid that effort. --John 19:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your evaluation of my comment, but I understand and agree with your overall position. Further, your latest comment on the article's talk page indicates that my redacted comment was unnecessary as the point I was trying to make did not need to be made. But your earlier comment and the talk on your talk page indicated to me that you were not hearing what was being said but were merely assuming what you had been told was true. Maybe we can actually make some progress this time. I sure hope so and will do everything I can to make your job easier. WAS 4.250 19:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your understanding. I appreciate it. --John 19:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Poultry farming
You might care to cast your eye over this new article. Spenny 18:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input
Thank you for your input at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability regarding the Bruce Lee article. I would appreciate it if you would also provide your remark at Talk:Bruce_Lee for the sake of helping develop consensus. Shawnc 01:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Incident reported
Hi.

Sorry I'm busy at uni this week (as well as recovering from my own bout with 'flu, oh, the irony), so I'm not about to engage in a revert war over tags to Influenza pandemic.

the article as it stands is very unencyclopedic in tone and content, which is enough to warrant at least a. I have pointed out two gross innaccuracies in the first paragraph alone, that along with many poorly sourced US gov't propoganda lines presents what I feel is a good case for an. As you have failed to open a productive dialogue about my concerns, and instead have simply chosen to ignore them as not good enough or not specific enough and repeatedly removed tags without consensus, I ahve reportedthis an incident to administrators.

Feel free to add further comments to the discussion there stating your side of the story and any other comments.

Cheers--ZayZayEM 04:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 00:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Influenza pandemic
Hi there, good to hear from you again. Looking at the sandbox version it does appear that ZZ is making some improvements, so despite his rather rude approach this might produce a better article in the end. I'll add the page to my watchlist. All the best Tim Vickers 16:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. WAS 4.250 16:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

NOR POP
When was the discussion about pop culture on NOR? i'd like to read it over to see why there was no consensus. Thanks for mentioning that, so we don't try to reinvent the square wheel...;) – Dreadstar †  17:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The major debate on it (Phil was the major force behind it) was held at the talk page of WP:ATT and subpages of the talk page perhaps December 2006 and no consensus could be reached so ATT was dropped for a while. Then SlimVirgin resurrected ATT without the pop culture exception figuring we all agreed uniting V and NOR was a good idea; but people complained, Jimbo asked for a poll, and everyone voted. Naturally there was no consensus. You ask 100 people anything and they aren't all gonna agree. Anyway, so then efforts returned to V and NOR and ATT. I can't remember for sure if there was then a debate at NOR or V about adding a pop culture exception per se but I do know the subject was brought up amidst all the back and forth that went on when Tim was trying to contribute to these policies. I know that's not exactly what you wanted to hear, but it's all I can tell you about it off the top of my head. WAS 4.250 18:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Principle of Conjugated Subsystems
That redirect might be an option, but it would be best to wait a bit and get more opinions in the deletion debate. A clear result there will prevent any edit-warring in the future. Tim Vickers 16:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Patience is a wonderful virtue. I wish I had more. WAS 4.250 16:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, I'd hold off on editing the Evolutionary Theory of Sex for a while, at least until people decide whether or not it should be nominated for deletion. I'd hate for you to waste your time. Tim Vickers 17:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * On its talk page people complained that it was too obscure. That they did not understand it. The idea seems to have some intuitive merit to me so I thought I would try to clarify. The English is terrible and at least I am a native speaker. If I don't edit and it is deleted because no one improved it, how is that a good outcome. On the other hand there is the issue of sources. but if I can make clear what the idea is I'll bet that others like you will be able to find some well known established ideas under different names that deal with the same concepts, then we can deal with this properly, as an idea that is in X category with these reliable published sources dealing with it. I think the basic problem here is communication and not pseudo-science. I could easily be wrong tho. I've just begun looking into it. WAS 4.250 17:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was some editing, thank you for doing this. Below are some sources that can be a good introduction to a subject: ".. people complained that ...they did not understand it" – where can I find these comments to clarify? First problem is of course terminology. This site has a dictionary. Do I need to update Wiktionary? Let me know how I can help, Sashag 23:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) http://www.geodakian.com/en/88_Bibliography_en.htm
 * 2) Translated from Russian section:
 * 3) Simplest - http://www.geodakian.com/Articles/Articles%20in%20English/Translated%20from%20Russian/1966%20Nauka%20i%20Zizn%20N3%20Eng%20transl.doc
 * 4) A little bit more complex - http://www.geodakian.com/Articles/Articles%20in%20English/Translated%20from%20Russian/1991%20Article%20Priroda%20Eng%20transl.doc
 * 5) Also Bibliography in German – similar to # 1 for German speakers - http://www.geodakian.com/en/90_Supplementing_Each_Other_en.htm My commentary to Parade magazine article. Also very simple to understand.

The biggest help would be if the claims were not so exaggerated. It seems like a good hypothesis for one factor in evolution. Trying to sell it as the factor in evolution just makes everyone write it off. WAS 4.250 02:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

".. people complained that ...they did not understand it" – where can I find these comments to clarify? Talk:Evolutionary theory of sex WAS 4.250 02:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, respect WP:COI and add your stuff to talk pages and not articles. WAS 4.250 02:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Editorial judgement
Thanks for your interesting comments. Hopefully others will also chip in their $0.02. "Editorial judgement" but seems to go against NPOV, but I'll wait to see if others agree with you. TableManners 05:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Editorial judgement" is how we judge whether something is or is not NPOV in the first place. WAS 4.250 05:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting, again.  TableManners 06:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)