User talk:WAS 4.250/Archive01

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:WAS 4.250/Archive01[edit]

Templates[edit]

Generic advice[edit]

  1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks ever. no excuses.
  2. Wikipedia:Wikiquette includes the sometimes useful advice "Come back after a week or two".
  3. Wikipedia:WikiLove reminds us "It's only the internet! Breathe...... and relax!".
  4. Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot

Act like a mature adult. The process works. You don't have to win. You don't have to make Wikipedia perfect by tomorrow. Spent your energy on making Wikipedia better ELSEWHERE rather than waste time in a revert war in any one place. walk away, edit elsewhere on wikipedia. Come back the next day or so. Try to never revert more than once per day on any one article. If it's not fun, you are doing it wrong.WAS 4.250 08:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

One may place {{unsigned}} at the end of an unsigned remark.

Please distinguish between Sources (not connected to a specific fact), References (an external link or name of a source conected to a specific fact), and external link (term is best used when it is NOT also a reference or source).

New sections go at the BOTTOM.

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~).

What I see[edit]

I am red-green color blind and see diminished red. The green light in a traffic light looks white to me.

File:Colorblind2.png- File:Colorblind3.png- File:Colorblind4.png- 

I see 83.       I don't see number. I don't see number.

B=black w=white r=red g=green y=yellow b=blue p=pink a=aqua(blue-green) o=orange v=violet(dark blue)

This image represents light from a prism in sunlight. I see:

BvbbbbbbbaaaggggggggoooooorrrrrBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

This image is a rendition of the computer color spectrum, showing the relative intensities of each of the three colors which are combined. I see:

rrrrrrrooyyyyggggggggggggwwaavvbbbbbbbbbppprrrrrrrrr

God[edit]

God is Santa Claus for scared adults who want a daddy in the sky; a government lie to get people to fight to the death; an anthropomoriphication of nature (the sun is trying to make me hot), and a social institution with a useful social role for a superstitious species. WAS 4.250 16:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Useful links[edit]

Hoorah![edit]

Glad to have you, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, glad you got yourself a username. See you around, buddy! John Smith's 13:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simplex algorithm[edit]

Please stop sabotaging my attempts to add algorithmic content to the Simplex algorithm article. Thanks in advance. --Fredrik Orderud 12:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. My bad. WAS 4.250 14:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. No hard feelings :) --Fredrik Orderud 14:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Club-winged Manakin[edit]

(content moved to User talk:Jimfbleak)

New addition on my talk - Jim
category comment on my talk - jim

conversation reproduced below:

Can we talk?[edit]

We apparently have differences of opinion with regard to two issues: (1) copywrite and fair use (2) verify-ablility and sourcing/referencing. This is apparently causing an edit conflict between us on Club-winged Manakin. Would you like to discuss this with me? WAS 4.250 23:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I didn't really see it as either an edit war or a copyright issue. I made the changes I did for the following reasons

  • The style of this article was not consistent with other bird articles, so I changed the format to be more like other pages
  • There were some factual errors - other manakins make mechanical sounds with their wings at the display leks (I've seen three species do this). Also I thought it was the peacock's tail that was important in display, not the wings
  • I didn't think it was necessary to repeat the references in both the text and the list of sources
  • Since the extensive quotations are in the sources, I thought it more important to extract the essence of what was being said than the actual words, especially as some of it was rather waffling and digressive in nature. I don't know if there is a copyright issue, but that wasn't my reasoning

Sorry if I've caused problems, I tried to reflect what the article was saying, but in what, at least to me was a more appropriate way. I don't know if we can reach a compromise on the style, or whether you would prefer to seek the views of others? jimfbleak 05:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I've moved your respose here. It makes sense to me to have it all in one place. Move the whole thing to my talk page, if it matters to you where we put it. Or, you could reply again on my talk page and I move it too. Or ... well, you get the idea.
  2. Since it is not an edit war or a copywrite issue, we should be able to wrap this up fast since you care about form and appearance and I only care that (1) the data is there somewhere and (2) verifyability is maximized.
  3. Many other pages share the problem of lack of verifyability and changing a page to be consistant with that bad trait is a bad thing not a good thing. Please investigate the use of sources and quotes and references in the featured articles and in the guidelines and elsewhere so you don't inadvertantly make articles worse.
  4. As far as factual errors, everything was based on the provided SOURCES. This illustrates the need for sources. The way to handle one source saying one thing and another source saying something else is to QUOTE both sources AND LET THE READER DECIDE. We don't do "Truth" at wikipedia, we present what reputable sources say and let the reader decide. Newpapers get things wrong a lot so if a newspaper says one thing and a university source says something else, REPLACING the newspaper quote with the university quote makes sense. But just deleting it because you personally know better is not a process that is workable on a site where "anyone can edit". Find a quote/source that says what you know and use that, so others can VERIFY.
  5. About repeating the source in the article and at the bottom: The BEST way is using a referencing system as the best (e.g RECENTLY featured articles) articles in wikipedia do. The worst way omits sources altogether. Putting the source in only the text is not as good because it is useful to put them altogether in one place; sometimes one source is used for more than one fact, and it's less likely to be deleted in a source section in the bottom. Putting the source only at the bottom doesn't let someone connect a specific fact to a specific source for the purpose of verification. Putting the source in both places is the lazy man's (my) solution and not as good as using one of the referencing systems available at wikipedia.
  6. If you prefer a style that presents the data without using quotes (I would like wikipedia to be nothing BUT quotes, but that's just me) please don't extract "the essense", extract ALL the data (and, no, pointless "waffling" is not data) and for verifyability connect the data and the source (many ways are possible). Please. Thank you. WAS 4.250 15:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added references for manakin behaviour that covers a fair number of the species. I would have thought that the peacock error (unless I misunderstood it) was self-evident, but a source could be Pheasants, Partridges and Grouse by Madge and McGowan, ISBN 0-7136-3966-0. Do you want to have a go at doing an edit that meets both of our concerns - basically we have the same objective of producing a good article, so I'm sure that we can sort something out between us.
Why category Pipridae - my old world list of birds gives three species in this genus? - Jim
  1. On line sources are easier to verify, but ALL sources and their data are very very welcome.
  2. As I'm lazy (like I said earlier), I'm a kinda hopeing to come back to the article in a few days and not feel a need to make ANY changes. But I'm not so lazy that I wouldn't want to help you make the article better if you feel that properly sourcing data is something you wish my help on. (I don't know why you would; I'm guessing you can do that at least as well without me - I might even cramp your style!)
  3. About "category Pipridae" : I don't recall. WAS 4.250 16:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, maybe you are thinking I'm placing the bird in this category??? No, the category designation is for the article to group like articles in a tree like structue so people can find similar articles. Or is the issue something else? WAS 4.250 16:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the principle, and to me Category:Pipridae makes sense. However, I thought that the standard pattern was a category link to the genus rather than the family (unless there are no other species in the genus) - I don't mind what you do on category though.
On-line sources are easier to check, but not always as reliable as standard texts. Jim
  1. I only care that some useful category is used so people can find it without knowing exactly what to type for the title. People who do care about categories are going around spending day after day changing categories to the lowest one that still includes other articles (I think I have that right).
  2. While standard texts are more reliable than some on line sources, online sources, by nature, are better positioned to be updated when things change (and in science we discover new stuff all the time - yeaaaa for science!)
  3. I didn't remember the peacock thing so I looked up my initial article creation just now and see that the reporter called the peacock tail feathers "wing" feathers. I always thought of the tail feathers like a third wing - sort of like talking about a monkey's four or five "hands" - including his feet and maybe his tail. I guess it depends if you are discussing "anatomy" or "use". If a bird uses its tail like a stabalizing wing can it be a wing in addition to being a tail? So it never occured to me calling the tail a wing was an error. To me it was just another way of looking at it. WAS 4.250 17:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enteric nervous system[edit]

I believe the edits you made lately lead to a copyright infringement, therefore I reverted to the last version. I find the quotation you presented however brillinat, and if you have the permission of NY Times, plz bring it into the article one more time (but plz make the copyright clear on the talk page). --Dbach 09:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am European and no specialist in US copyright jurisdiction ... if you are sure what you are doing just go ahead. I still think it is a good idea in such cases to make that clear on the talk page. Dbach 18:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright and fair use[edit]

Fair use says "Fair use makes copyrighted work available to the public as raw material without the need for permission or clearance, so long as such free usage serves the purpose of copyright law, which the U.S. Constitution defines as the promotion of "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (I.1.8), better than the legal enforcement of claims of infringement."

See [1] for further information.

"RULES OF THUMB FOR COURSEPACKS

The Classroom Guidelines that were negotiated in 1976 can provide helpful guidance and we recommend that you read them. 1. Limit coursepack materials to

  • single chapters
  • single articles from a journal issue
  • several charts, graphs or illustrations
  • other similarly small parts of a work. "

from [2] illustrates the principle of extracting part of a work being covered by fair use.

The New York Times itself quotes others.

"Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work." [3] therefore a quote that essentially lists facts isn't even covered by copywrite in the first place.

See [4] for summaries of illustrative court cases on fair use in the US.

Wikipedia primary servers are in the US.

While it would be nice to have no legal complications, the rich in this world are seeking to own everything including math equations (which is what software patents are).

Don't help memes that block the free flow of information. Help memes that promote freedom. Fair use is one such doctrine, law and meme. WAS 4.250 13:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam[edit]

I replied @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#from_Talk_page_of_Existence_of_God. If the topic really interests you, try IM [[5]]. Cheers, Tasks you can do 00:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't IM and I don't converse via E-mail. I am willing to make exceptions, but only for money or love. WAS 4.250 01:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahahaha... makes me wish I had some amway to sell you... Tasks you can do 02:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Nonexclusive atheism[edit]

I think someting along the lines of what you showed me belongs in the article, but that particular version is somewhat "original research"-ish, which may be part of the reason why it was removed. See if you can rewrite it with more sources, and perhaps modify that black box white box bit to be a little more formal. Andre (talk) 17:52, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion continued where it started at: talk WAS 4.250 18:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina[edit]

I reverted your additions to Hurricane Katrina because a) WP:NOT a crystal ball and b) the information on Hurricane Betsy belongs in the Hurricane Betsy article, not in Katrina.

Also, most of the information on your talk page goes on your userpage. See others talk pages. --tomf688<TALK> 16:12, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


Nonsense[edit]

I just noticed and replied to your comment @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#from_Talk_page_of_Existence_of_God. If the conversation is making you angry or uncomfortable, you are under no obligation to continue. I feel no special need to force my paradigm on anyone, but I am willing to discuss when asked. Cheers, Tasks you can do 20:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I absolu-tively am not angry or uncomfortable in this discussion with you. I was an evangelistic Christian. Now I am an evangelistic atheist and I am pleased to show you "the way, the door, the truth" (if you know anything of evangelical Christianity you can recognise this as me making fun of myself). I know neither of us "force", both of us believe ourselves instruments of what is good (in some sense). WAS 4.250 00:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I admit I am evangelical in a way, but my goal is to convert others into self-actualization, not any specific religion. For example, I have a friend who calls himself an "atheist", but who understands my conception of God (as a personal incarnation of existance) as valid, and even further, thinks that the Christ commonly concieved of is a pretty good role model. Clearly there isn't much farther he needs to go, and if he feels an emptiness and need for greater metaphysical depth, he would have to be the one to begin that search. I must admit I am intolerant of actual atheism, much as I am intolerant of actual hyper-calvinism, but IMO there are about as many actual adherants of the one as the other, and both #'s combined arn't far from 0 ;) Oh, and I replied to the above thread on my talk page. Cheers, Sam Spade 12:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I chose trotsky beause he was a "true believer", and thus might have been far more focused on the grand social experiment, and not on "what works" in the cold hard world. My guess he would have created a short lived but interesting "utopia". Or, maybe he would have proved that power corrupts, and been much the same as stalin ;) Yet more replies @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#from_Talk_page_of_Existence_of_God, btw. Sam Spade 15:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I moved our thread to its own page, due to size contraints. Feel free to continue if you like, here is a link, and if your interested in some past discussions, they can be found @ User talk:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases. Cheers, Sam Spade 16:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucratship[edit]

Hi, WAS 4.250. Thank you so much for your support on my bureaucratship nomination. Unfortunately, it didn't pass, but I intend to run again soon. If you'd like to be informed next time around, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks again! Andre (talk) 05:15, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard#Existence, about Raygun[edit]

Point taken. I edited Raygun accordingly. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard 21:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Fruit[edit]

See the page on Thomas Shipp, and this site which is cited there, as well as other external links on that page, for the connection between the Shipp lynching, and Strange Fruit. Note thst the picture of the Shipp/Adams lynching was one of the few widely distributed lynching photos, so the account is not implausible. Note also that a link to Thomas Shipp, was placed on the page in the same edit, and following that would have made the source clear. I admit I should have copied the exxternal link to this page too. DES (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

non-guns in Directed-energy weapon[edit]

I mentioned the electroshock gun and the thermic lance there because some people may think that they are directed-energy weapons and look for them there. I have now put them in a separate section near the end. Anthony Appleyard 07:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I am well aware that citing sources is important, adn I have visited and red most if not all of the links you provided. Note that WP:MOS#Other sections indicates that the proper name for a section containing external links (even when these are also sources) is "External links". The ref trmplate and a related section can be used to indicate the supporting source for specific facts, and perhaps I should have used this method in my recent edits in Strange Fruit and the Shipp article. But that does not justify changing the standard name of a standard section. Can you point to any specific passage in any policy page that says that an external links section should not be called "external links" because it is also being used to provide sources? If not, please don't make such changes. DES (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Shipp[edit]

I have added fairly through reference notes on this article. Please give it a look and see if you think I was right to remove the {{verify}} tag. And please, stop changing standard section names. DES (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of God[edit]

"I'm not going to waste my time cutting and pasting to save what deserves saving"

Stop trying to start a personal argument. By reverting ALL my edits, you are showing no respect for me or my writing. I am unreverting the page. I am giving you a chance for you to apologise; I won't delete the list if you so want, but it is up to you to re-add that list, and not delete anything else.

Infinity0 20:49:38, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLII[edit]

Since you asked, you might be interested in the external links I added to that article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • By the way, we either use "External links" or "References" for the section header title. ""External links and sources" is almost never used. Take a look at the featured articles for examples. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you marked the article as {{verify}} again. What exactly do you need a reference for??? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never mind. I saw your strict definitions that you listed near the top of this page. I have since corrected the article and added more content and references. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

calm down[edit]

First calm down. Take any major changes to talk pages first, and don't be so aggressive. Dunc|☺ 20:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

calm down[edit]

First calm down. Take any major changes to talk pages first, and don't be so aggressive. Dunc|☺ 20:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

calm down[edit]

First calm down. Take any major changes to talk pages first, and don't be so aggressive. Dunc|☺ 20:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

calm down[edit]

First calm down. Take any major changes to talk pages first, and don't be so aggressive. Dunc|☺ 20:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics[edit]

Don't hit the genetics articles with {{verify}} tags. Dunc|☺ 20:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment[edit]

I'm not really sure that I believe "wiki-stalking" is a real thing. Monitoring a user's contributions is not discouraged or disallowed. Andre (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use[edit]

Direct copy and paste of an entire paragraph from a news article is not fair use (and much more than just a "quote" as claimed in your revert). Although your personal interpretation of fair use may be valid, it differs from Wikipedia's policy: please see Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Fair use--Confuzion 14:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of God Reorg[edit]

We're having a discussion on how best to reorganize the Existence of God article. We currently have two competing plans. One version is being sandboxed here, and is being discussed here. The other plan (mine) is being discussed here. Since I remember you being interested in this article, I'm asking for your input. (This is being copy-and-pasted to several people.) Thanks! crazyeddie 19:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1960s[edit]

Aplogies, 1960s being heavily vandalised and your revert was still full of vandalism, I reacted too quickly.

--pgk(talk) 10:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

verifiability, not truth[edit]

I know policy. The edit I was trying to make Terrorism was a verbatim quote from a notable source that contained a URL to verify it's accuracy. The entire Terri Schiavo article is almost nothing but quotes and copy/pastes from external documents with URL's to verify everything. It's such a hot, controversial topic, about the only thing we can agree on is when we report

So-and-so said "blah" (URL).

So, I get the difference. My comment about "true" articles was somewhat poetic. FuelWagon 00:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

God bless you, lets get together and take back wikipedia from the volunteer police force[edit]

I loved your comments about fair use--god bless you--we should start a webring here on wikipedia (or its equivelent) to stop the volunteer police force here from destorying so much information!Travb 00:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom fighters and their organizations[edit]

Regarding: "we should start a webring here on wikipedia (or its equivelent) to stop the volunteer police force here from destorying so much information" - The fight for freedom is in full swing with those fighting for the freedom to own information pitted against those fighting for freedom of information. What the American Civil Liberties Union was for freedom a generation ago, the Free Software Foundation and people like Lawrence Lessig are today. The free on line available book Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig : How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity may interest you. WAS 4.250 01:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am a member of the ACLU--thanks for the link--I was thinking about overzealous ppl here, stopping them from deleting posts. You are lookign at the big picture, I am looking at a much tinier one....Travb 01:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copywrite and fair use[edit]

Hi Was, I'm glad to see someone is reading up on fair use. You should also read wikipedia's fair use policy (WP:FU). It is a litte more restrictive, and specific to our uses, than the stuff you quoted. Among other things, attribution is required. --Duk 01:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duk, I argue that instead of deleting things, we find the source of things and add footnotes to the items, as I did in the Winter Soldier Investigation, and at H5N1. TDK spent a good amount of time finding the source of these articles, just to (what appears) to delete it. (Please mention this to TDK, if you feel)Travb 01:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zealous volunteer police attempting to erase a nine page article for five rewritten sentences[edit]

Hi, thought you may find this latest revert interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&oldid=26162517

It was quickly changed back to the original by an anonymous user--I am new to wikipedia--what can I do to stop this zealot? The guy reports hundreds of web pages every month.Travb 07:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested, the argument has gone to a moderator. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation

Huh?[edit]

Why are you telling me this? I rewrote it as a comprimise that works for both sides and I think it does. Just stop the pointless arguments and see if you can make the section better. Again, I rehashed it so there can be practically no claim of copyright violations. If you think you need to add a quote, go ahead but I really don't understand why you are posting this on my talk page. Sasquatcht|c 06:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Club-winged Manakins[edit]

Hi WAS, I saw your comments in your edit summary. If I did not interpret the Manual of Style incorrectly, both ways are acceptable:

References
Put under this header, again in a bulleted list, any books, articles, web pages, et cetera that you used in constructing the article and/or recommend as sources of further information to readers.
External links
Put here, in list form, any web sites that you have used or recommend for readers of the article. — PM Poon 13:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

stolen password[edit]

Goethean and I have had some differences of opinion in the past. I don't begrudge him for it, but I wouldn't consider his endorsement of an RfC against me to mean anything neutral or objective. FuelWagon 00:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split infinitives[edit]

I'm not sure what prompted your message, but I agree completely that so-called split infinitives are not grammatical errors in English (I say "so-called" because in fact English has no infinitive, and the nearest thing to it – something more like the Greek indefinite – can't be split, consisting of, in most cases, a songle word). On the other hand, the phenomenon designated by that term, the placing of an adverb between "to" and the infinitive/indefinite does exist, and can often read very clumsily. There is also the probblem that many (older?) readers still react badly to what they think of as split infinitives.

My approach is to happily use "split infinitives" (as you can see) so long as they don't read badly, when I find another contruction (actually that last one was on the borderline; it's got a bit of a clumsy feel to my inner ears).

I suppose that this boils down to:

  1. there's nothing grammatically wrong with them
  2. but they can sometimes read clumsily
  3. there's certainly nothing wrong with avoiding them, so long as the alternative isn't itself clumsy.

The upshot being that, especially given some readers' aversion to them, when a writer has constructed a sentence so as to avoid the use of a "split infinitive", I think that it's perverse to recast the sentence in order to include the construction. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nelder-Mead method[edit]

Hi. You reverted an anonymous edit at Nelder-Mead method, with the edit comment "the method used in a simplistic fashion produces local optimums, but used in a sophisticated fashion finds absolute optimums within the criteria the article describes." I'm afraid I don't quite understand this. What is the "sophisticated fashion" to use Nelder-Mead? What do you mean with an "absolute optimum"; is this the same as a global optimum (see Optimization)? Which criteria are you refering to? I'm sorry to bother you with these questions, but I thought that Nelder-Mead could indeed only find local optima (and even about that I have some doubts). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Cement[edit]

Hey there. You reverted my anonymous edit with the snide comment "revert. breathing in bad things is bad. Saying "environmental groups claim it" is like saying "some claim the earth is not flat" The topic is Portland cement, and the issue is whether there are excessive, harmful emissions that result from producing it. It is NOT established fact that there is anything extraordinary about cement plants that makes it hazardous to live near them, hence my edit to clarify that this is a debate involving environmental groups. I chose the wording carefully...certainly better than the clumsy text you reverted to. --unsigned

Regulated? In which countries? Who says so? (provide sources). How about civil suits for harmful but unregulated? How about lowering the value of nearby homes and businesses due to emissions (regulated or not)? Censorship of these issues is unencyclopedic.

Whether they are "excessive" or not is a point of view. Wikipedia gives the facts and lets the reader make their own judgements. Emissions are produced. Let's document what they are. Putting the amounts in some sort of context is useful. Limiting the discussion to what you consider "excessive" is not appropriate. I'm sure you could improve the text. The latest efforts didn't. WAS 4.250 00:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can debate this rationally rather than starting a revert war. Looking only to the second paragraph of the topic, the original text lists "limestone" as the source of impurities. That is too specific; the impurities (if any) may originate in any of the several raw materials - hence my edit. The original text mentioned "gases" but had carbon monoxide listed as if an afterthought - I rearranged the text to clearly include carbon monoxide as a gas. I grouped the gases under the term "regulated" because it was apparent that the original author (you???) only listed such gases, omitting the much more voluminous carbon dioxide and steam that are the principle emissions in the manufacture of cement clinker. You feel that there needs to be a cite regarding what emissions are regulated; I feel that excessive notation and linking clutters the article. If such detail is of interest, a separate heading later in the article would be appropriate. Lastly, the final sentence regarding emissions of lead, arsenic and mercury is factually incorrect. Such emissions are not a necessary consequence of the cement-making process and thus should not be listed at this point in the article. Such issues would be better placed later in the article, under Safety and Health effects. Regarding your comments above regarding lowering home values etc., I do not see that this point of view is specific to the Portland Cement topic. Doesn't that apply to all industries?

JJackson8

  1. Perhaps we can debate this rationally rather than starting a revert war. I would like that. I really don't care HOW something is said. But don't delete data, and provide sources for questioned data.

>>The "data" you are defending is not supported by fact, nor by any source/cite in the article. As with anything, it is up to the party making a statement to prove that it is so, rather than leaving it to others to prove that it is not. If "data" is incorrect, it is a valid action to delete it. I intend to move this debate to the discussion area of the article, as this issue should be put up for public examination rather than left to you & me. As for not caring HOW something is said...well, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Objectivity, accuracy and clarity very definitely DO matter; HOW it is said is key to achiving this.

  1. Looking only to the second paragraph of the topic, the original text lists "limestone" as the source of impurities. That is too specific; the impurities (if any) may originate in any of the several raw materials - hence my edit. That was a good edit. Please put it back, if you wish.

>>Please chose your words carefully. It really isn't up to you to give me permission to edit.

  1. The original text mentioned "gases" but had carbon monoxide listed as if an afterthought - I rearranged the text to clearly include carbon monoxide as a gas. I don't care about how data is presented.

>>This is pretty revealing. You don't CARE? Really? It's an ENCYLOPEDIA. If presentation of data doesn't matter to you, what does?

  1. I grouped the gases under the term "regulated" because it was apparent that the original author (you???) only listed such gases, omitting the much more voluminous carbon dioxide and steam that are the principle emissions in the manufacture of cement clinker. No, not me. I got involved with this page as 4.250.xxx.xxx in deleting ad-like comments and replacing them with quotes about the world's major manufacturing countries. (you can tell I care about sourcing and not presentation!) This is about the WORLD. "Regulated" refers to ONE country. I assume you don't intend to go into what every county in the world regulates or not. Leave out "regulated" - no good can come of it. Please ADD gasses rather than delete them.

>>Please note that the word "regulated" is right there in the text you keep reverting. 'Nuf said?

  1. You feel that there needs to be a cite regarding what emissions are regulated; I feel that excessive notation and linking clutters the article. If such detail is of interest, a separate heading later in the article would be appropriate. I was pointing out where we don't want to go. Leave out "regulated". (at least until we work out the other issues. Quoting some source that brings up regulated could be worked in, but emmited substances should not be categorized as regulate or not - it is too dependent on time and place.

>>I will be proposing a detailed listing of cement plant emissions (typical) within the article. This needs to be a factual, quanitative table of data with sources identified.

  1. Lastly, the final sentence regarding emissions of lead, arsenic and mercury is factually incorrect. Such emissions are not a necessary consequence of the cement-making process and thus should not be listed at this point in the article. This is not about "necessary consequences" in some textbook about the theory of cement making. It is an encyclopedia article on the real world substance and what we can say about it people will want to know. Commonly associated emmitions are part of that. Uncommon emmissions that are noteworthy are part of that. All I ask with regard to this is don't delete it.

>>You & I clearly disagree on the function of an encyclopedia. It should be exactly about the textbook description of Portland cement. Discussion of emissions is appropriate, but must be as neutral as possible. The article as it exists is not neutral.

  1. That's enough for now. Basicly all I'm asking for is don't delete the data!

>>As I said above, I will post the issues in the discussion area for public debate.JJackson8 WAS 4.250 05:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did a revert on the Portland cement article as you'r edit took away some notable stuff - seems to me lik you did a revert without checking/editing - so I did the same "misstake". Pleace read my input on the PC talk page and submitt you'r editings, but pleace leave Europe intact (EN 197) :) Sincerly, Oyvind 09:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You chose to move the disputed text rather than join the discussion as to the validity of the text. I am now deleting it altogether, and ask you to explain and justify why it needs to be there. The consensus (you appear to be the lone exception) is that the discussion of pollution, in the current form, is not correct. I ask you to JOIN THE DISCUSSION and refrain from lame reverts. This is not "data" we are discussing, and if you feel otherwise it is up to you provide evidence. JJackson8 17:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WAS, pleace JOIN THE DISCUSSION and present your view, data and facts there. Personally I don't think "blind" reverts are the road to go.... Oyvind 14:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you note[edit]

Hi WAS, thank you very much for your kind remarks and please forgive the late reply.

My problems with Mel started when he tagged one of my first few articles, and being a very blur newbie, I wrote to him to find out where I had gone wrong. That was when my nightmare began. He seemed to be haunting me after that, whenever he "caught" me editing against his advice. Subsequently, his friend, Phronima, came along, and I thought it was Mel under another pseudonym. Their characters were so similar, even up to the quirk of making sarcastic remarks on the "Edit Summary" and their insistence that they are the authority in the English language.

You were very perceptible when you said that Mel can't distinguish American English from bad English. I realized that, only after he edited some of my work. In any case, Mel is a perfectionist, and you know what perfectionists are, LOL. He doesn't seem to see the big picture and the philosophy behind a community portal, and therefore acts like a policeman when he should be acting like a counselor. I bet he must have chased away quite a number of potential contributors, LOL. I am truly amazed that he teaches Philosophy in Oxford, as I always thought that philosophers are philosophical, LOL.

Anyway, I have nothing against Mel, especially so, since he has stopped bugging me after our latest engagement, LOL. Either that, or he was too busy fighting his RfC. My latest interest is in translating articles into the Malay language so I will be spending considerably less time in this English section from now onwards. — PM Poon 05:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In real life people lie about things all the time. On the internet "noone knows if you are dog or not". Mel (and everyone else in virtual space) is best thought of as the sum of your experiences with them. Even if there is someone called Mel that is as you described and has been met in person by someone you know, how do you know the edits that are a part of your experience with the on line Mel are not actually his daughter, for example. The on line Mel of your experience does not necessary correlate with any known real world Mel. And suppose it actually does. Jeckle and Hyde behavior exists. I don't know if Mel is or is not whatever. Doesn't matter. He is his edits to me. WAS 4.250 05:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Strange Fruit[edit]

Are Lewis Allan's chilling words so inadequate in describing lynching that an image is required to aid the reader? Are people unaware of what lynching entails? If so, are they so impoverished that they cannot click on lynching and learn the full details for themselves, images and all? I don't think so.

You say that "Strange Fruit" should have an image depicting a lynching because it is a song about lynching. By this rationale, the image Image:GGrandKiss.jpg is appropriate for the article "Love Me Do" because "Love Me Do" is a song about love and GGrandKiss.jpg is an image depiciting love. If a sensible person saw an image of a random couple kissing on the Love Me Do article, they'd probably find its inclusion odd and remove it. The particular picture you are defending is not even the picture that inspired the song. That image can be found at Image:Shipp lynching.jpg.

When you reverted my edit to restore the image, did you realize you effectively destroyed my other edits to the page as well?

Also, was there a purpose to pasting the lyrics of "Strange Fruit" on my talk page with no explanation?—jiy (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WAS_4.250/Archive01&oldid=1140967683"