User talk:Zenwhat/Archives/2008/February

Know you're busy, but if you need some monetary policy of the USA action....
...There's some absurd stuff masquerading as reliable sources. This is really outrageous. Not karmaisking outrageous, but still.--Gregalton (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Because of some pretty idiotic stuff I've dealt with on policy pages, I mostly focus on reforming policy, WP:RSN, and WP:FTN. If you know of any specific articles, though, yeah, point them out and I'll take a look.

If you ever get frustrated and feel like blowing up over it, I suggest doing the same thing. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * maybe parts of this article violate WP:SYN(for example money creation part)? --Doopdoop (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't get that
"If any of you have any examples" at WT:WikiProject Robotics...I don't follow what you're saying. I repeat that I have read your userpage and seen your contributions many places (I've only been hanging around WP about 2 months, but I'm a fast reader), and I have enormous respect for your viewpoints and your contributions to WP. But I'm not entirely sure you get my point...it has nothing to do with robots, per se. It's about improving the quality of robotics articles on WP, and about not offending the people who have the talent to do the work, so that they stop cloistering in their own users groups and come over here and brave the WP-and-sister-sites culture. You may or may not have been calling me a dork for thinking this, I couldn't tell (which is certainly true sometimes.) When I talk in any forum where roboticists can hear me, I attempt to represent their views...partly because I think they don't do that great a job of representing their own views, they tend to simply withdraw, and I'm trying to lead by example. In other forums (like here), I'm more open to different viewpoints. Possibly I might even exhibit a sense of humor. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not a dork. Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. Your attempt may or may not be successful:


 * It might be totally unsuccessful, because good editors do not have greater authority on Wikipedia than fairly irrational mobs, provided that the mobs aren't blatantly silly and follow the rules.
 * It might be partially successful, because good editors can sometimes have small wins, here and there, and from what I understand the first person to write an article generally has the most power.
 * It might be successful since, to be honest, I can't really see there being that many mobs gathering around anti-technology or anti-robot POVs.

On that last point, though, it certainly is possible and if it happens, I'd like to see diffs. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC possibility
Hey Zenwhat, thank you for your support--it's very much appreciated! I do not like Addhoc's actions here at all, and I do think they are out of line, especially for an administrator. Unfortunately he is allowed to remove content from his own Talk Page, but his WQA actions are definitely not OK. For the time being I'm going to leave it alone, but if the situation continues or another WQA like that is filed, it will definitely be an option to seriously consider. And if an RfC is filed against him by anyone else at any point I will be bringing this up.

At my Talk Page, Iamunknown also brought up the possibility of bringing this issue to Third Opinion--I thought that might be a good option, but after looking at the description on that project page, I don't know if it fits. It seems as though this would be a conduct dispute more than a straight-up editing conflict. So I don't know if it's worth it to file a dispute there. Best, DanielEng (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion about possible COI of editors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election%2C_2008#Possible_COI_of_two_editors  --70.11.142.4 (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)