User talk:Antaeus Feldspar/Archive 07

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Notice

in case you didn't notice: since i know that you are not quite so sympathetic with zappaz as i am also for obvious reasons, i wanted to tell you that he is on his way to adminship at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Zappaz Thomas h 12:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Trolling for votes against me, Thomas. That is very unwikipedian. --ZappaZ

14:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You could have chosen to inform him yourlself. Informing one of his strongest opponents first, could have been a true sign for a worthy candidate Thomas h 17:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious Freedom Watch

"marked other comment left by probable sockpuppet" - Antaeus Feldspar edit summary 10 September 2005 07:24[1]

Who is it a "probable" sock puppet of? --AI 12:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Microwave auditory effect#Other possible natural carriers

""apparent original research; will aredd if citation request is satisfied" -- didn't look very hard, did you, AI?" -- Antaeus Feldspar edit summary 12 September 2005 15:11[2]

It seems I have not researched into the content of this section as fast as you have. --AI 03:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Your AfD apology

I wouldn't have noticed if you hadn't pointed it out. :) But neh, don't worry and don't apologize - strong words and real opinions are nothing to be sorry for. BTW, I was definitely not advocating keeping the article as it was written... Try this one on instead: Victim complex SchmuckyTheCat 18:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Slaughterhouse-Five

Billy's fatalism appears to be grounded in reality (at least that reality which Billy perceives); after noting that Billy had a copy of the Serenity Prayer in his office, the narrator says, "Among the things Billy Pilgrim could not change were the past, the present, and the future."

I disagree with your edit above; in this novel, the universe is completely deterministic. Unless you are perhaps talking about the theory that the Trafalmadorians are in Billy's imagination? Tempshill 18:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

That is exactly what I'm talking about. For some reason a lot of the people who edit the article are under the impression that because Billy is our viewpoint character, that whatever he perceives as happening is literally happening (or will happen), and ignore the fact that because Billy is our viewpoint character, we have no objective verification that things are actually happening as he perceives them. If Billy's Trafalmadorian experiences aren't real, then neither are any of the people who supposedly verify their reality; we don't even know if the porn actress that he sees on Earth really is named Montana Wildhack or if that too is part of the delusion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Admin nom?

Antaeus, I've been reviewing some of your contributions, and I was wondering if you would be interested in a an admin nomination? It seems to me that it is overdue. Regards, Fawcett5 22:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow... I'm very flattered, but it's something I have to give quite a bit of thought to. I hope that's all right. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You mean he isn't one already? :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, by all means think it over. While Rfa can occassionally be a bit contentious, I don't think you'll have any serious problems. And the rollback button alone is worth the price of admission. Keep in mind as well that accepting the mop does NOT oblige you to necessarily spend more time on "admin" functions. For me, the rollback and ability to do the more complex page moves are 90% of the functionality I actually use. I have blocked the occassional vandal, but I don't think I've ever had call to protect a page except when it was an image going on the main page. Regards, Fawcett5 12:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

incorrect stub

I'm sorry about my mistake, I was mislead by the article's name. Thank you for your correction. Conscious 13:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Mass changes in the article, "Rape"

First of all, I would like to thank you for pointing out the mistakes to me. I do not know where I got this idea that H2 headings must be in small letters apart from the first word, and H3 headings onwards should be in title case (ie. capitalize the first letter of each word). I may have read it somewhere, or else some users must have told me that. I have since go back to the MoS and found that all headings should be treated in the same way. Thanks for your advice.

I have spend two days trying to edit this article (outside the website, that is). It seems to me that an integrative approach is necessarily, rather than minor adjustments here and there. In any case, if this is the wrong approach of doing things, I guess it is better for me to spend my time elsewhere. For this article, I felt that while the contents are very well written, the structure (ie. the way the sections were arranged) was kind of disorganized.

As for minor mistakes here and there, there are bound to be, although I did take considerable care. As for non-quotations that have been converted into quotations, it must be because the "apostrophes for italicizing words" look so much like "quotation marks". I will take note of that in future.

In any case, if these mistakes are deemed to outweigh the contributions that I have made, it would be best to revert the article back to its original version. PM Poon 18:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, please notice that I never asked you to not make changes. What I asked is that you space them out more, so that other people have a chance to check your changes and respond appropriately. This might actually save you some work; if you correct one kind of mistake, another editor may see it and realize that other mistakes of the same kind are still to be found in the article; the job gets done by cooperative effort because everybody takes a little bit of the job to do. As I said, there's practical reasons, as well as civility, behind spacing out your edits. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I have seen your edit, and have greatly learnt from it. As far as I can see, about half the errors come from the subheading style where I had used the title case, as advised by one user earlier on. This is a very minor problem that could easily be corrected without creating a storm in the teacup. As far as I am concerned, sometimes a cooperative style where "everybody takes a little bit of the job to do" is excellent, but there are instances when it is not — for example, when a holistic approach to editing the article is necessary, such as in restructuring an article, after many users have contributed. As in many things in life, there are times when quantum leaps are necessary, and there are times when tiny steps are preferred. Let us not therefore quarrel and let us agree to disagree.

From my short experience here, editing in Wikipedia has not been a very rewarding endeavor, what with the attitudes of some of the administrators. While it is true that you never did ask me not to make changes, you did NOT find anything good in my edit, and merely saw the mistakes. In any case, would you agree that the revised article is now neater, and that the cost in terms of effort to both of us is worth the while? If not, please revert my edit to the original. This will ensure that justice is not only done, but seen to be done. It's no point griping at something, and yet wanting to use it at the same time. -- PM Poon 03:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

One Man's Trash is Another's Treasure

Much of what you remove is useful information. You need to be a little more open minded as to what should be removed and not removed. If it is not false, and not libel, obscene or irrevelent it should stay.

Unfortunetly, you remove what people worked hard to create out of your own arrogance. Try and think that perhaps it may have low value to you, it may be of value to others.

I'm sorry that you think that adding two external links (or, in point of fact, adding one external link twice) is an awful lot of your hard work. I'm also sorry that you have a mistaken idea that "not false, and not libel, obscene or irrelevant" is the highest standard Wikipedia aims at. I'm also sorry that you have the idea that the way mature adults deal with such conflicts is by juvenile high-school antics on the lines of "Do you like Feldspar? I sure don't!" Finally, I'm sorry that you haven't grown up at all since you pulled this same nonsense at Melissa Joan Hart. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The contributions from this IP over the last weeks have almost all been puerile vandalism. I have blocked the account and deleted a one-line, unsigned "RfC". Maybe someday this person will grow up and become a useful contributor. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Your reversion of The Melted Coins

The decision to remove that external link was indeed reached by consensus (see Talk:The_Hardy_Boys and Talk:Stratemeyer_Syndicate). This decision affected over 100 articles covering multiple book series (Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew and others), although it is not apparent within the discussion of each of those articles. I've reverted your reversion since the link was removed by consensus. We decided to allow a single link to that individual's website per book series, and not one for each individual book article, because his website contains Amazon affiliate links for purchasing those books. --Dan East 20:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see! I thought it was just another unilateral edit by the same anon (you know the one I mean, of course) just with a different edit summary instead of the same old "spammer and plagiarist". (In fact, looking at the contributions history, it looks like it is the same anon...) I didn't realize that there actually was a consensus decision and this time the anon was acting in accordance with it instead of defying it. I'd been cleaning up after some strangely uncaught anon vandalism just before, so I thought that this was more of the same. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep, believe it or not, it appears the issue has been settled. No reverting or vandalism for a number of weeks now. --Dan East 22:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

David Bauer (actor)

Well, based on the availble facts, since he would have been in his 30's at the time of the Red Scare of 1948-1953, I made the perhaps unwarranted assumption that he was actor by trade, if perhaps not a film actor before he moved to Britain. He certainly played American roles in Britain. If you want to change the stub back to just plain actor or double stub him as both a US and a UK actor, I wouldn't mind. I don't think stubbing him as just a UK actor would be approriate tho. Caerwine 17:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Double-stubbing seems to be the way to go. Even based on just the known facts, you can make a good argument for either side -- he was certainly an actor in Britain, but he was best known for playing "an American", so... I don't see what double-stubbing would hurt, so I'll add the British stub. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Merkey and Off/On Topic

About the judges opinion; I meant that whatever the judge may have said, it doesn't have any bearing because Jimbo's words (Jeff's version or otherwise) have no bearing on the deletion request. Hauling in the particular findings of fact feels like the goal was to encite Jeff (who has a short enough fuse as it is) rather than discussing the merits of the deletion request. Posting the quote now has brought Jeff to more posturing again. Sorry that I didn't elaborate that on the deletion page.

I am all too aware of what kind of person Jeff is, and WikiPedia is learning it remarkebly fast too; let Jeff's conduct speak for itself --MJ 20:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC).

Re: Behavior Therapy

Hi! I actually don't even remember making that redirect—it looks like something that I did whilst on RC patrol as an alternative to deleting. Feel free to change the redirect if you think there is a more appropriate place for it to point to. JeremyA (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hypnosis

Thanks. I always take everything with a grain of salt. If you think some sort of "mediation" would help, let me know. — RDF ^talk 18:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that -- both parts, both the offer to help find mediation and the taking everything with a grain of salt. Unfortunately, I don't know what sort of mediation will work; I'd rather just have people coming in and looking at Hypnosis with fresh eyes and helping to make it a really NPOV article, that gives fair explanation of all POVs. I don't kid myself that the article was perfect before the edit war, but I like to think I'd at least made some headway in cleaning it up... -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I get the impression you took my unhappiness w the article as I found it rather personally. I apologise for that. I was probably disrespectful, resulting in our current predicament. If you would be willing, I would be glad if we both could agree not to edit that article until we have successfully resolved our differences. The edit war we have been having, separate from anything else, has had a negative impact on that article, I would hope you agree. I favor mediation, and am open minded as to how it occurs, and who mediates. I seem to remember us both editing the Rape article (a difficult subject if there ever was one) amiably in the past, so there is hope, I should think. Sam Spade 19:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Even if I had no personal feelings about you coming in and without talk page discussion beginning a "major overhaul" designed to undo the hard work already put in to make Hypnosis an NPOV article that discusses both POVs on the subject, I would still oppose your changes, Sam. No matter how many times you repeat that treating one POV as the only one is just "giving it a fair hearing", it's still not, it's slanting the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

What do you say to RDF's offer to mediate? Sam Spade 15:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

If you both are interested in something informal first, I'm willing to give it a go. — RDF ^talk 19:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Verifiability

Thanks for your comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Otherkin. It's entirely possible that I'm completely misreading WP:V, as I've only been here a couple months. I agree that some things need more verifiability than others, however to me, Otherkin seems about as verifiable as an article about "Bloggers who hate George W. Bush". Certainly, a quick google reveals that they exist. However, expecting readers to "verify" the article by reading people's blogs doesn't seem quite cricket to me. To me it's a classic example of an article built using only nonreputable sources, which is why I quoted that bit from WP:V in the nomination. It's entirely possible that I have a non-mainstream idea of what verifiability means, tho. Anyway, I welcome any further comments you may have, as I'm trying to get a good handle on what WP:V and WP:NOR really mean. I thought I mostly knew, but from this Afd, it sure looks like most people disagree with me. Friday (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response, Friday. Whatever our points of disagreement may be, I can tell you it's delightful to deal with someone who not only studies Wikipedia's policies but puts thought into why they are there in the first place.

The difference I would draw between "Otherkin" and "Bloggers who hate George W. Bush" is that, given basic knowledge of what blogging is, and what bloggers are like, it seems almost a given that no matter who the current U.S. President was, there would be bloggers who hated him or her. Such an article would almost inevitably go one of three ways:

Statements that do not need verification but do not say anything interesting or non-obvious. "There are many bloggers who hate George W. Bush."
Statements and claims that are interesting and/or non-obvious but need verification. "Most bloggers who hate George W. Bush are minorities." "Bloggers who hate George W. Bush have on average more education than bloggers who like George W. Bush." These certainly go farther than just saying "these bloggers exist" but who's assuring us that these things are true? To put such statements in the article we would at the very least need to know who makes this claim, and describe it as their claim, rather than as something Wikipedia is stating as fact.
Statements and claims that are interesting and/or non-obvious and may even be verified, but which belong in other articles. For instance, "Bloggers who hate Bush often criticize his invasion of Iraq based on faulty intelligence such as the yellowcake forgery." This is a frequent criticism of Bush but it would be more appropriate in a general "Criticism of George W. Bush" article -- unless this was a criticism particularly stressed by bloggers more than other critics, which would probably need verification that this is a blogger-specific criticism.

In contrast, the belief system (loose and varying though it may be) that defines Otherkin is not an obvious one by any means. The average person, if not specifically told that these people exist, would probably never guess that these people exist, or what they believe in. This is what makes it possible to write an interesting, non-obvious article on Otherkin just by describing their beliefs, and for the most part (there are exceptions, of course) we can take people's words for what their own belief systems are.

The prohibition of no original research really has two purposes. One is to prevent Wikipedia from being seen as an avenue of publication for crackpots; numerous times we've been told that Wikipedia needs to keep the article that so-and-so wrote or otherwise The Truth will never get out because the Phar-Mafia/the CIA/the Einstein Cabal prevents the research from being published elsewhere. Needless to say, that's when we explain that if the peer-reviewed scientific journals passed on it, we will too.

The other is to keep people from drawing their own suspect conclusions and presenting them in article space -- for instance, if some editor decided that the legends of werewolves in the Middle Ages must have come from Otherkin who were there at that time, that would definitely be original research. The prohibition against disreputable sources is to keep people from presenting dubious facts or conclusions as fact just because someone out there who wasn't a Wikipedia editor claimed it to be so. If the Otherkin article were to state that legends of werewolves in the Middle Ages came from Otherkin, not because an editor decided it but because an Otherkin site claimed it to be so -- then we'd definitely run into problems of verifiability. But as long as we're describing what people believe as what they believe, we can usually take people's word on it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to provide such a detailed response. It all seems reasonable to me. Part of me wishes there was a way of tagging an article as using possibly dubious sources, though. Part of my experience with Otherkin was that a while back I wanted to merge several of the otherkin-subtype articles into the main article. The problem was, some of the people who were Elenari, therianthropes or Vampire lifestylers consider Otherkin a seperate group. There wasn't enough consensus to agree on how to categorize and (possibly) merge some of this stuff. I think that'll continue to be a problem, but maybe that's just how it goes with obscure topics. Friday (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute? It might have what you're looking for. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I've looked at it before, but I'll check it out again, thanks. BTW, I posted a question on verifiability over at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy)#Can a website verify itself?. Since you seem to have nicely thought-out views on these matters, I thought you may be interested. Based on the above, I have a feeling I know what your opinion would be on this question already, but the discussion is there, for what it's worth. Friday (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Eire Shamrock/ Prodigal Fenian and "Wikiginity" - A thank-you

Just a brief note to say thank-you regarding your message to me regarding the "first edit" note you put on my vote on the relevant page. Since I was speaking not only as, hopefully, a future wiki, errr, user, but as a NationStates player and an NSwiki user, I certainly understand the "sometimes we have to be anal about to show that we're not showing favoritism to one side or the other" factor you mentioned, ;)

Also, " Yay, second edit ! ^_^ ". I don't think I broke anything, either, which is nice. This United State 06:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Candy Jones

Antaeus, please have another look at Candy Joness. That's exactly what happened. Long John Nebel was into weird stuff like UFOs and hypnosis; it's not at all surprising he reached such a conclusion. No one rational believes Long John's conclusion reflects the actual situation. See if the changes merit remove of the label. - Nunh-huh 20:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say they do. I'll remove the tag. Thank you for such good, fast effort; it made me feel again like Wikipedia can work, which sometimes I start to doubt... ^_^ -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I credit many late nights mis-spent, listening to Long John interview many people from other planets.... He was the spiritual father of Art Bell, but managed not to take himself seriously. As to the other contributions made by that IP...hmmm.... - Nunh-huh 21:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Help with User:PM Poon

Sorry to trouble you; I couldn't work out whether you were an admin or not, but you have had dealings with this User. After correcting some Englsh on an article, and adding the "copyedit" template, PM Poon made some edits and removed the "copyedit" label. The article was no better (in some respects worse), and I replaced the label, explaining my action to PM Poon. Since then he's been harassing me on my Talk page, leaving long, insulting, and hostile messages. He's also started going through the list of articles that I've created looking for typing mistakes (that's OK, so long as they're genuine, though it's still a bit creepy). What should I do? I left a message at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance), but I haven't had a reply yet. -Phronima 13:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've had dealings with that user. Unfortunately, I'm not an admin and I can't really suggest anything that "worked". You may want to contact Mel Etitis, an admin who I know has talked with PM Poon about his/her tendency to "copyedit" unsuccessfully. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Response to RfA

Thanks for participation on my RfA. I did not respond during the vote as to not to disrupt the voting process. Now that it is over, I would want to respond by quoting from Jimbo Wales' Statement of Principles (my emphasis):

Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness. Both are objectively valuable moral principles. Be honest with me, but don't be mean to me. Don't misrepresent my views for your own political ends. And I'll treat you the same way.

And most importantly, It's only the internet! Breathe...... and relax! ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not misrepresent you. I told everyone exactly the view that I really do have of you, and I showed them exactly the evidence that led me, regretfully but inescapably, to conclude that you prized the promotion of your POV over your own integrity. Don't you think I would rather think of you as a colleague who may believe different things than I do, but believes them honestly and believes in fair treatment?

I wish I could count you as an honest colleague, as I do many on Wikipedia whose viewpoints I differ with, but after seeing your behavior the best I can say is that I do not think you are as prodigiously dishonest as Zappaz. Zappaz I fully believe to be willfully dishonest; you might be willfully dishonest or you might just be under the impression that all it takes to be honest is saying "I am honest" and that honesty will therefore imbue your actions without effort. But if I were look at all the numerous times you've demonstrated your double standards and still pretend I can believe you are honest? That would be the misrepresentation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from modifying a closed RfA. (Header states: The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.) I would appreciate if you can revert to the final version when the RfA was closed. You can respond to that user's comment on his talk page. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 22:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

queue

Thanks, I almost wrote "cue" ;) Sam Spade 18:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Dedham, Massachusetts

Greetings, I am back from my 6 month hiatus and wish to pursue various edits that interest me. Prime among my interests, is Dedham. As you now. we previously locked horns over my not having sufficient information to back up various assertions about the history of that town. However, I did buy and re-read a copy of the book I referred to back then, and as I knew it would be, it's chock full of the kind of facts I'd like to see in the Dedham article. I feel that various aspects of Dedham's history are underwieghted in the article and I'd like to see that corrected. I am going to work up a mock-up of that page, as a scratch page under my user page, which shows the edit's I'd like to include. When it's ready (in a few days), I'd like your feedback about it. You have good skills at the technical aspects of editing and I think if you peer review my work prior to my posting it, we'll avoid conflict. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 17:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC about Stolen Honor

You've participated in editing Stolen Honor. I've started a Request for Comment at Talk:Stolen Honor#RfC re scope of this article because we appeared to have reached a point of diminishing returns on the talk page. I'm glad to see you're editing fairly often again. Good health to you! JamesMLane 11:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Good luck

I was wondering where you went, especially with the recent edits on Hypnosis, but I see now you are ill. Well, edit warring on Hypnosis certainly seems like a poor pasttime when your sick, so I would certainly advise against it. For that matter edit-warring while writing a thesis (as I am currently doing) is also not worth it.

Either way, good luck, and hope to see you around! The Minister of War 14:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

JamesMLane for admin

I have created this Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JamesMLane, but and not sure if I've posted it right.

Please look. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 08:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Science!

Just wanting to express my admiration at your dedication to scientific principles and the scientific method vis á vis the AfD page on Fatfemnudist. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah}

I'm glad my research paid off. =) -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)