User talk:Greg L/Archive 3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Proposed deletion of Cobalt (CAD program)

The article Cobalt (CAD program) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There has been a long and repetitive debate but still there is only one external source which makes a brief mention of the subject. As such this article does not meet notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. duncan.lithgow (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well, you don’t know your fucking ass from a hole in the ground. Fuck off. Greg L (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

And next time, actually first create the voting page for an AFD before bothering an editor who did hard work creating an article so you don’t waste so much of another human being’s time. I’m too busy in real life making money and paying taxes to bother with this shit. Greg L (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Musing: Ph.D.s v.s. kids in a collaborative writing environment

It’s about time we had a serious discussion about having a tiered system of editors where there are hierarchies. While writing my articles, I actually look up the original papers and called the Ph.D.s who wrote them. I had done so extensively for an article on thermodynamics as well as one on a quantum-related subject. In both cases, the Ph.D.s graciously gave me a huge amount of help and seemed honored that someone would make the overture to them to seek their advise and feedback. In both cases, initial emails were followed up with a phone call or two, and then were followed up with emails so they could review proposed text I was preparing for the Wikipedia article in question. In both cases, they made valuable corrections because in physics, there are frequently exceptions to the rule that makes it important to be very precise with a given statement so as to not be more encompassing or sweeping than the facts support.

Why should I be digging this stuff up by going straight to the horses mouth? Why aren’t these Ph.D.s contributing directly to Wikipedia on an article discussing material they published in peer-reviewed science journals?

In both cases, the Ph.D.s were truly gobsmacked that anyone would bother to toil over article content that some 15-year-old kid could revert. These experts are amazed that Wikipedia works at all because of the ease with which ignorant or stupid people revert studious, factual truth because he or she read that Dick Cheney is a robot, or worse yet, something not quite so asinine so most non-specialist editors can’t tell on first sight that the allegation is B.S.

I can tell you from first-hand experience, since I am now a medical researcher specializing in bariatrics and metabolism, that there are numerous utterly laughable, fallacious assertions in our articles. It would be easy to fix them. But it is so hard to defend stuff because the true facts are supported by really complex material from text books and scientific papers that aren’t available as hyperlinks. Few experts are willing to endure the frustration of defending complex technical writing on Wikipedia.

It will be difficult to come up with a smooth-running process to graduate editors to hierarchies, but the notion that all editors are equally capable and knowledgeable is, of course, fallacious. The idea that “WP:Consensus” can address these differences is (sorta) valid, but it takes an extraordinary amount of time to deal with false allegations. Moreover, merely by being polite with faux wikipleasantries, the most exceedingly tendentious and verbose editors can virtually hijack entire venues of Wikipedia and cause hundreds of man-hours of time be devoted by the community to get things done.

The vague notion that “Everyone is granted equal editing privileges because we’re all equal, maaaaaan”, makes for fine music next to your VW bus, but creates an environment that prevents the most knowledgeable contributors from even considering contributing to the project.

It’s clear that a Ph.D. physicist who wrote a landmark paper on string theory knows more about a subject that most generalist editors who A) have high self-esteme, and B) a high-speed Internet connection. It’s equally clear that experts shouldn’t have to devote as much time proving a point of fact as does some 15-year-old kid with gobs of time on his hands. If everyone had equal knowledge (a clearly false assumption), we’d have a lottery system where you could as easily have eight-year-olds teaching classes in high school.

For instance, I know more about PEM fuel cells than probably several hundred million other people. I was the second employee hired (as an R&D scientist) at the only company in the U.S. that today has a truly viable commercial PEM fuel cell in the 5 kW range. Most of my 16 patents pertain to fuel cells. But I have literally not even looked (literally) at our Fuel cell article because it would be so frustrating arguing with kids who get their information out of Popular Mechanics. I’m too busy in real life to be willing to put up with the aggravation.

I think it is about time we abandoned the notion that because it is hard to develop a system for discerning and granting hierarchical editing privileges, we should forever give up on trying to do so. The project has grown far beyond its humble beginnings and it is time to encourage more professional-level contributions.

Lest anyone suspect that I advocate this for my own benefit, I don’t. My motivations for being an editor on Wikipedia are different from many others and is certainly different from many experts in their respective fields. I tend to edit on articles that I don’t understand well and would like to learn more about. So I research the living hell out of a given subject matter over a number of months as I expand stubs; at least, that is what I used to do. Greg L (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You're actually calling the PhD's? Turns out you're more dangerous than I realized. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop

If you're going to make stuff off, leave it off of my talkpage. Veiled threats, random statements about what I did or did not mean (especially when it's clear) and attributing things to me that are bogus and beyond belief might be welcome in your world, but not mine. I'm giving you credit that you're choosing to move forward productively and without a WP:BATTLE mentality ... don't prove me wrong. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

PS: Your diatribe above looks like the kind of thing that works better on your user page, as it's rather philosophical in nature. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct. My improper thought here should clearly demonstrate how wrong I was. Your use of words like “rational” and “irrational” and “diatribe” makes it clearly look like you have lost objectivity. I suggest you recuse yourself from all further dealings with me. Please don’t further attempt to BAIT me. Happy editing. Greg L (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins is not baiting you. Also, you're not being oppressed. You're just rude and looking for a fight--if anyone is guilty of baiting it's you. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Facts:

1. BWilkins wrote this: You're actually calling the PhD's? Turns out you're more dangerous than I realized.
2. He had blocked me three days earlier.
3. Wondering why he would take the time to come to my talk page and leave such a post, I posted this on his talk page asking if “Is this in jest or a joke?”
4. Notwithstanding that according to Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct: “Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others”, he responded with this: no rational human could read it as a personal attack - and even some irrational ones would not have been able to stretch their imagination

…and things go downhill from there. Until he lands here with more BAIT by labeling my above advocacy for change on Wikipedia as a “diatribe.” Bwilkins is no stranger to Wikipedia and he knows full well that words like “diatribe” provoke and belittle. His behavior today has been atrocious and rather than setting an example for civil interaction, he has gone out of his way to provoke. Greg L (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of this. BWilkins is not baiting you. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

That’s your opinion. Perhaps you think that his coming and labeling my above, cool-headed suggestion as a “diatribe” is how one ingratiates themselves to new company; I don’t. Far from it.

And that’s been two times now—just today—with no wiki-business to tend to, he chose to come here to my talk page and leave unsolicited, inflammatory posts missing any emoticons to even hint that he’s joking and isn’t anything but serious. And all this is from an admin who blocked me three days ago.

So, trying to smooth things over civilly, I offered a good-faith conjecture that if he really intended the comment as being in jest, and assuming so, thanked him. How would a mature and responsible adult respond to that overture?? Go ahead; click on that link and look at my post, I’ll wait…

(* ♬♩ sound of elevator music ♬♩*)

Guess again; he instead responded with “No matter what [I] meant…”

(* sound of record needle being ripped off an LP *)

So, to that I wrote on his talk page, and which he deleted and left his previous response:

Well, please pardon me all over the place, but you are clearly wrong as to what would rightly be considered a personal attack if (*hint hint*, I interpreted what you wrote as you wrote it). I don’t know what you are talking about when you introduce “anger;” I wrote of no such thing. We seem to be talking cross purpose but now I am getting a sense that you practice the art of ambiguity to play things both ways. And if you really mean what you just wrote, then perhaps you might reflect on my opining that you are more dangerous to Wikipedia than I thought. You seem intent on wikilawyering now. So tell you what: You stay away from my talk page unless you have serious business like protecting people from hearing what they’ve heard a thousand times on a school playground. I’ll reciprocally stay away from this talk page. I also suggest that if you want to practice being an admin on Wikipedia, you do a better job of it; I started this thread out with the question “Is this in jest or a joke?”. You could have easily defused it all by merely writing “Ooops, sorry. I meant that as a joke.” Instead you chose to inflame and BAIT me with talk of “rationale” and “irrational” people and “no matter what was meant.” It’s very unseemly. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

All the above strikes me as utterly childish behavior of someone unable to let bygones by bygones and who enjoys throwing his weight around and try to make trouble. Now, how say we let a Bureaucrat, who has authority over admins like you and BWilkins weigh in? Now that I’ve kicked it up with an appeal for help on this, there is zero point your coming here anymore. Moreover, it should be obvious that you and I aren’t going to see eye to eye on this sort of behavior. Greg L (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

A Bureaucrat is more than welcome to comment, but apparently you believe there is a hierarchy here on Wikipedia... they do not have authority over admins (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to add a couple of things: first, I am responsible for and responsive to the community at large. If you have an issue that has not been resolved between us and it requries rapid community intervention, try WP:ANI. If you believe there is a long-term pattern of behvaiour, please submit an WP:RFC/U. Both of these community processes will of course look at both sides and the behaviours of both parties - WP:OTHERPARENT makes good reading, based on what you say are your current actions so far. Second, I attempted to discuss your concerns - however, even when shown otherwise, you continued to attribute meanings/behaviours to my actions/statements. As such - and as is my right - I removed them; one cannot argue with someone who simply has a bee in one's bonnet and refuses to listen to reason. I then asked you to remain off of my user talkpage if you were going to continue to be aggressive and rude in that manner. As you are already aware, contrary to your loud statements above, you POSTED on my talkpage yesterday - which was an invitation to discuss - please don't try to claim I came "with no business". You were unfortunately, yet rightly blocked for your earlier behaviour. I continue to act appropriately, yet you're looking for some reason to create doubt: it's not going to happen. My recommendation is to drop the WP:STICK and move on as a positive editor. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You can just stay away from me and stop trying to provoke and BAIT. Your protestations of how your behavior towards me has only been appropriate and wasn’t intended to provoke and belittle only digs the hole deeper and creates the perception that the community erred in granting you admin privileges and that you can’t be trusted to exercise your duties in the manner expected of admins.

You keep on writing insulting things like how I am “more dangerous” than you thought, impugn my perception of reality by noting how “no rational” person would interpret what you wrote as meaning what you actually wrote, and then you come to my page and use a well-worn tactic often used on Wikipedia of referring to someone’s writings as a “diatribe.” Then you come here again, shedding crocodile tears and profess to be as pure as the driven snow, only intent on upholding Truth, Justice, and the Wikipedian Way. If you're going to make up stuff, leave it off of my talkpage.

Furthermore, when you used words like “diatribe,” when referring to what another editor wrote (a childish insult intended to provoke) and then say you really meant that in a complementary way and I am just misinterpreting innocent little you (you write above that you “continue to act appropriately”), you are exhibiting a colossal inability to admit fault. Particularly on Wikipedia, where every single thing you write is permanently part of a record, such denials do not make people blind to the truth and does not impress. No reasonable person thinks that your coming here and adding a postscript message beginning with “Your diatribe” is in accordance with Wikipedia’s administrator conduct requirement that “Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.”

It’s all quite simple: If you want to practice being an admin on Wikipedia, you can starting doing a better job of it. I started the thread on your talk page with the question “Is this in jest or a joke?”. That post was polite and mature, it explained the background facts of the matter in a clear and plain way and invited you to clarify your meaning. You could have easily defused it all by merely writing “Ooops, sorry. An ;-) emoticon would have helped there. I meant that in a facetious manner.” Instead you chose to inflame and BAIT me with talk of “rationale” and “irrational” people, and “no matter what was meant”, and refer to a proposal of mine that begins with “It’s about time we had a serious discussion…” as a “diatribe.” The wikipedian community expects much better of their admins.

The next time you have an issue with me, go find another admin to do whatever needs to be done; undoubtedly they will exhibit more maturity and sensibility than you have been capable of lately. There are hundreds of admins on Wikipedia; the community doesn’t need you stirring the pot with an editor that you’ve latched onto like a pit bull and simply don’t know when to let go. Greg L (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Your user page: Excessive unrelated content?

Greg, do you think your user page complies with the guidelines in WP:User pages? Particularly the section on "Excessive unrelated content"? Jeh (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• When I first came to Wikipedia, my writing skills could stand serious improvement. So I devoted much time to improving and honing my wordsmith skills on my user page by writing about subjects that might appeal to a wide audience. What might look like easily written prose was actually the product of hundreds of edits and tweaks as I would revisit it a day later and wonder what in the world I was trying to say. It’s a practice I suspect would benefit Wikipedia if more editors did so. Think of my user page as being a sandbox of sorts since my userpage is chock full of all sorts of reference HTML this ‘n’ that. For every rhetorical question like yours that has been left here, I receive two or three expressions of appreciation, such as “#Your open letter to Aliens” and this barnstar: “#You deserve this.” Greg L (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If it was up to me to decide, I would advise putting the material on one or more subpages with links from your main userpage. It would still be accessible to those who are interested and less annoying to those who are not. Plus it makes whatever short content you retain on your main user page stand out rather than being lost in a wall of information. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• I might jigger things around so the table of contents moves up towards the top (as I stare at this in “Show preview,” I like that idea a whole bunch). Articles like “United States at the 2011 Pan American Games” would be useless if the TOCs weren’t near the top. Greg L (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Now editors who come to my user page for quick access to my quiver of convenient wiki markup syntax and HTML editing resources (you know who you are), can more conveniently navigate to it with near-zero scrolling. And people like User:NuclearWarfare can more easily discover things that induce him to leave appreciative comments here like “Thanks for making the world, or perhaps just my own little world, a better place.” Greg L (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• That is an improvement. Still, I am not sure whether the page conforms to the "Excessive unrelated content" section of WP:User pages. We really do need to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on this sort of thing. I would also note that the fact that some folks really like it (I am one of them, BTW) doesn't change our responsibility to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Do you think the page meets the standard set forth in

Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?

and

Wikipedia:User pages#Excessive unrelated content?

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

All my user pages, including “Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house’, serve a valid Wikipedia-related purpose (advocating against useless linking in the case of the sewer cover article). The operative word in Wikipedia’s policy pages is “excessive” and there is no bright-line definition to that term. And why is that? Because the application of that term is dependent upon what exactly the content is, why it is there, and where it is.

As I explained already, I use my userpage as a sandbox to improve my writing skills. I’ve had editors complain about how this very talk page is excessively long and I should archive material more frequently; I have done so on occasion. Still, you can’t make everyone happy…

Some editors enjoy plastering their pages with tons of userboxes telling of every imaginable detail of their existence, such as what state they live in, languages they speak, what their interests and hobbies are, their various life accomplishments, beliefs on matters, what their occupation is, what their various occupational skills are, and what memberships they have. The lists go on and on. How exactly this practice came to be and the extent to which users create “I love me” walls of userboxes is a mystery to me; my grand total of four userboxes have more of a wikipedia-related focus and are less about me.

Rather than all that, I chose to improve my writing skills by focusing on a specific topic and expanding upon it; that too is Wikipedia-related business as helps ensure my prose doesn’t suck. Greg L (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. But, tell you what: I collapsed my entire user page and will leave it that way for a few weeks so you don’t have to be so easily exposed to someone who wrote about his son instead of himself. If you want to continue to make hay about it, you can do so on the premise that you know it still sorta-kinda exists and it can still be viewed with only one click by those who like it. (*sound of audience gasp*) Greg L (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't listen to him Greg. Sure, parts of it could be farmed off to subpages, etc. However, as long as none of it is violating copyright, etc, it in many ways DOES get people to understand both YOU and what you're doing on the project - as is the intent of a userpage. Guy can simply not visit your userpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I literally just had a shiver go up my spine. Thank you very much for weighing in. Greg L (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

All I did was discuss the question of whether there is too much (after someone else raised the issue), being careful not to offer an opinion as to what I think the answer should be. (Opinions as to where it should go are not the same thing, and I would assume far less controversial, especially if put in "this is just my opinion" form.) I feel like both of you are criticizing me for something I never wrote. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a right way and a wrong way ... and of course a right time and a wrong time to approach the topic. Your approach was wrong both in method and time-wise, all considering (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.