User talk:MjolnirPants/Archives/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

April 2014

• Note: My (MjolnirPants) responses were originally places on LM2000's talk page. I have transcribed them here for clarity.

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:God's Not Dead are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you.LM2000 (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but the subject of the discussion was whether the urban legend the film bears so many similarities to should be mentioned on the page. That is an appropriate subject for discussion on the talk page per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I've left the wipe and will re-phrase the issue more succinctly, because the discussion better resembled an argument. I would ask however, in the future that you try to be more clear on the issue being discussed before making such a wipe. Thank you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for rephrasing. I wasn't the only person who took issue with your initial remarks, which at least on first glance looked to be anything but productive. In addition, there seemed to have been Civility issues on all sides.

The issue of whether or not the film is connected to the urban legend is a relevant one though, so I encourage a productive debate on that. I've seen some critics mention that debate... If I can find them again I'll link them in the talk page.LM2000 (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree that my initial remark was not productive, however I didn't remove it myself both because it began a discussion, and because I am leery of removing my own words from a discussion, as the act reeks of deception. I believe than any civility issues I may have had began and ended with that remark, however it is difficult to engage someone as confrontational as that IP editor without the appearance of loosing one's cool. I have already re-phrased my opinion on the talk page, if you wish to involve yourself in the discussion. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Covering works of fiction

As an encyclopedia, an article for a book would include a short plot summary, but call out section listing "plot points" as identified by Wikipedia editors would be entirely redundant to the plot summary and smacking of WP:OR.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:PRIMARY: "For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Listing key plot points is analysis. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Vote on Merger of Vikings and Norsemen

Thanks for notifying me on the vote on Merger of Vikings and Norsemen. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Re:Harry Dresden, Wizard

I'd be glad to, not sure how to go about it, though. The difference between "mage" and "wizard" might be slight, but there's definitely a difference between a "magician" and a "wizard". Ngebendi (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

P'haps I've been too hasty, but for the moment Harry Dresden is still a wizard. Not sure what to make of the Magician (fantasy) article, though. Ngebendi (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I kind of hoped the page was moved from "wizard", but has *always* been "magician". There might be more to it than I previously thought... Ngebendi (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Your sandbox...

... was simply out of place among the category I was perusing to keep track of the Dresden files. So, do not worry. Ngebendi (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ngebendi: It's all good. I would have done it myself if I had noticed that I still had the categories on it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Skin Game

Don't envy you, getting entangled with the OR police. For what it's worth, I support your interpretation even though I may not necessarily like the way you've written the synopsis (I haven't looked at the article). I've always felt there is no reason to nit-pick unless the article's description of a book's content is likely to be challenged. Deb (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I just read your side of the argument and the extract from the article and it seemed pretty reasonable. Deb (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately -

(A) There is no section for uninvolved users to comment, and

(B) I have a history with both TRPOD and TransporterMan and could be accused of bias

So probably better for you if I butt out. My comments above are just moral support.

Deb (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Dresden Files notability

Have no idea what that Mikeblas was doing in tagging Cold Days for deletion on this notability issue, without touching the other pages. It seemed that an all-or-none situation. Thank you for addressing it for me. Ngebendi (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Me neither. Like I said in the RFD, it reeks of nerd rage, like he personally dislikes the Dresden Files. The fact is, the series is unarguably notable, and considering that there are only 15 books in it, all by the same author, all part of the same continuity, that means the books themselves cannot be anything but notable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Just one request...

Hi, thanks again for your explanation. I just need some help in giving this colorized pic a more natural look. I did some times ago but I think it looks like a b/w pic painted by a child. Could you please help me? Thanks in advance.

• 
  Original version
• 
  Colorized version

--Carnby (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, before I start showing you any work, I want to post a few thoughts in the section below. I'm hoping you can take some of this away, and it will help you in the future. - MjolnirPants

Oh, I'm a bit scared by your explanation since it is very in-depth, however I will try to study it carefully. Best regards and thanks again.--Carnby (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I know. It's quite a bit longer than I originally thought it would be, however colorizing images is (as you can see) a lot more complicated than it seems at first glance. I broke it off into a new section for clarity, and I'm planning on giving it it's own page as soon as I'm done. Hopefully, it will be helpful to you and others. :) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I've finished the tutorial, and posted it to User:MjolnirPants/Colorizing. Below this, you will see the finished re-colored version, side by side with yours. I hope you enjoy the tutorial, and I hope the new version of the image looks good to you! :) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• 
  The original colored version
• 
  My re-colored version

Armenian woman and baby is up for FP

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Mother_and_child_in_desert: Feel free to vote. But, more importantly, is there any way to address the concerns raised by Adam at the nomination page? Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

whole numbers redirect and natural number

Hello MjolnirPants, I saw that you reverted my redirect for whole numbers to integers. That is a curious thing. I'm pretty sure the explanation was given on the edit. The natural numbers page is under flux. Initially the page provided no definition for whole numbers, and even worse used them in other definitions. In contrast the integers page provides a good discussion on the subject. I would invite you to look at the integers page.

I attempted to add a conventional whole number definition to the natural numbers page several times, but each edit I have added on that subject has been deleted without comment. Yes, the last note on this subject on the page after days of back and forth was out of frustration (my bad), but it was a reasonable wakeup remark for the other editors.

Now a reasonable definition for whole numbers once again appears on the natural numbers page. We will see if it lasts the day. I'm not sure the state of the redirect right now. Still wisdom would suggest that the Integer page is a more stable source of good information and it would be good to take advantage of that at least until the natural number storm passes. Please take a look at the integer page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Walker Lynch (talk • contribs) 09:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Please tutor Thomas on his talk page

Your example of talk page formatting is very helpful, but it would be better to tutor Thomas on his talk page. Even better, would be to add your example to WP:THREAD or WP:INDENT and link to it. --50.53.35.229 (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

As you should already know, Thomas reads his talk page. That bright orange banner is impossible to miss. BTW, your example is better, so be bold. --50.53.35.229 (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Your example was helpful to me wrt {{outdent}} and {{talkquote}}. And your example is better, because it numbers each comment and reply, and it does not confuse the subject with silly dialog. --50.53.35.229 (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There are guidelines for refactoring talk pages.

• Note: My (MjolnirPants) responses were originally places on 50.53.47.9's talk page. I have transcribed them here for clarity.

Your comment move from Talk:Natural number to Talk:Whole number was done in a confusing way. There are guidelines for refactoring talk pages. In particular, note that "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." Reversion would just add more confusion, so I suggest that you put the moved comments in their own section with the original section name: "Why does positive integers redirect here? Whole numbers not related to integers??". --50.53.47.9 (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There were no (zero, nil, zilch, nada, none, naught) objections before I moved the discussion to the proper page for it. If you want to refactor it further there, be my guest, I have no objections whatsoever, as long as it stays where it belongs. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

File:The Masque of the Red Death poster.jpg

Hi MjolnirPants. Thank you for removing the glare and distortion from the poster. However I just noticed that the triangular end of the sword, just at the top of the female head, has been cropped. Can you fix that? Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi again MjolnirPants. Sorry again, but George Ho keeps tagging the image as too large. Last time the bot did not respond in 24 hours and I have doubts if it will respond this time. Can you possibly upload a satisfactory resolution, but not ridiculously low, so that this tag-warring can be finished? Thank you again. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Just some hints...

Hi, I need some help to remove a squarish scanning effect from these two pics:

• 
• 

I tried various GIMP filters with no results; could you please give me some hints? Thanks in advance.--Carnby (talk) 11:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Carnby: Unfortunately, there's little that can be done procedurally for those images. The best option would be to re-scan them at a much higher resolution. The moire pattern that you see is a result of the original images being printed at a higher resolution than they were scanned at. My advice is to do all scans at a minimum of 600DPI, preferably at 1200DPI. This will be high enough resolution to capture the individual dots that make up the printed image. When you need to reduce it in size, you then use a Gaussian blur to blur it just enough to slightly darken the white between the dots, then scale down using the cubic mode.

The quickest way to fix the images as is would be to make a copy, then isolate regions by their luminance (e.g. pure white regions, pure black regions, 10% black regions, 20% black regions, etc) and play with the levels until you have a grayscale copy of the moire pattern. Once you have managed to generate an image which consists of nothing but the pattern, you can use that image to make a selection on the original and lighten. Be warned that this method will result in a massive loss of detail.

The best way to touch them up in place would be to use the dodge tool to carefully go around and lighten the dark parts of the pattern. This will produce the best results, as it preserves the detail, but will likely require lots of experimentation to get your settings just right, and will take hours to do, even on small images such as these. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Bombshells

Have you checked under the "Novellas" heading? MinorStoop (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure that's the right spot for it? I thought it was quite a bit shorter than a work that would normally be considered a novella... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Might be worth its while to try this. MinorStoop (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

On a second thought, we might include everything from novellas to vignettes together, in chronological order. Books are the only ones that can exist indipendently, everything else is usually published in an anthology. MinorStoop (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that's probably the best way to do it. Novellas, novelettes and short stories all have a lot in common, and are only different from each other in word length, whereas they are markedly different from the novels in a number of ways (including the fact that something might actually go right for Harry in one of them). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This seems to take care of it. I've left them in order of publications, in-universe order is a bag of cats I'm not going to open. Merry Christmas. MinorStoop (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Now, this is how wikipedia should be working - a disagreement which leads to the improvement of an article. Does not always follow this script, unfortunately, so thank you. MinorStoop (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Shorter Dresden Files, and Molly Carpenter

Say, Mjolnir, since there is a page about "Backup", how about having one also for "The Warrior", "Aftermath" and "Bombshells"? Or is too much of a good thing, and will attract the criticism of the likes of Red Pen of Doom? As an alternative we might add the other titles to the Backup page and a sentence or two about the plot, and move it to "Dresden Files short stories" or some such, and have it at that.

What do you think? MinorStoop (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I also wonder if we shouldn't have an indipendent page about Molly Carpenter - while not on par to Karrin Murphy, her importance and book presence is greater than Thomas Raith's, which does have a page of his own. Or should we compress Murphy's and Thomas's pages and have a relatively biggish entry on the Dresden Files characters page? MinorStoop (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC) P.S. There's also a page for Bob, so perhaps a page for Molly Carpenter is more sensible than the padded entries idea. MinorStoop (talk) 17:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the short stories: I'm a little torn. I'd love to see articles on them, but I don't know how we'd defend the notability of them. TRPOD has challenged the notability of several of the books in the series, and while I've shot him down on those (though he/she'd never admit it FWIK), there's plenty of evidence to support their notability. I'd love to make articles about the short stories, but if someone requested deletion on notability grounds, I don't know how we could win the debate.

Regarding the Molly Carpenter page: I say we write a draft and not release it until the next book. I say this for the same reason I'm cautious about the short story articles, in that I don't think we could win a request for deletion on such a page right now. Jim Butcher has said, however, that Molly would play a prominent part in the next story. I think with the last published novel -guaranteed to be a best seller- featuring her as a major character, it would be hard to make the case for deletion of a page about her. The page about Thomas exists mostly because he is one of the fan favorites, IMHO. Search for "Thomas Raith" on DeviantArt and you'll find almost as many hits as for "Harry Dresden".

The way I'd prefer things be done is that Harry Thomas, Karrin, Molly, Michael, Butters, Ebeneezer, The Archive (with Kincaid), The Merlin, Cowl and Nicodemus should all have their own character pages. The way I think would be best in keeping with WP policy and the community consensus would be to have a character page for Harry, Karrin and Molly, and leave the rest with entries on the characters page. That being said, I can't see anyone making a serious effort to remove a page on Molly after the next book, and I can see our way to winning the debate, even if they do. I also don't think we should try to take down the Thomas page, because it's made it this far without being deleted. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Shorter fiction - We have lists for DF organizations and characters, after all, so there's nothing I can see preventing us from having a page for the "collected" lesser fiction. For now we have only "Backup", and if TRPOD decides to take exception with it, s/he'd have a point. So, I suggest we move that page to "The Dresden Files shorter fiction" (or something such), include all the shorter pieces, add the publication information and a plot summary (a sentence for the shorter pieces, a paragraph for the longer ones) for each. No mention of "Brief Cases", of course. My sandbox is just to show you what I have in mind, I'm going to work on it something more - feel free to add to/criticize it if you feel like and wikipedia's software dose not restrict you from editing it.

Molly Carpenter. Well, I suggested her, so she's a nobrainer, and I might be going to agree with you about Butters, and perhaps Michael Carpenter; you'd get a stronger case if you make it Michel/Charity (or even the whole family). Everyone else, in my opinion, is a bit of an overkill. To various degree, I admit, though; we might be considering a page for Nicodemus and the Archive in the future - the ending of Skin Game pretty much insures that Nicodemus will reappear and it does not look like we've seen the last of Ivy. But Cowl and the Merlin? Too minor roles, thus far, the way I see it. MinorStoop (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Shorter fiction - Now that's an idea I can get behind. I thought at first you meant individual pages for each piece. But a single page for all the shorter works? That sounds good to me. I'll see if I can't contribute to it's writing later today.

Molly - I think for now, we should hold off. Like I said, what I'd prefer and what WP really should have are not necessarily the same thing. I mentioned Cowl as having his own, because Dresden has set him up to be a major villain with regards to the overall story (with the Dark Council and the Outsiders). He hasn't mad much page time yet, but I'd bet dollars to donuts he'll turn out to be vastly important to the series. I have similar thoughts about The Merlin. That being said (I do so love that phrase), we don't need to create any new character pages at this point. My suggestion would be to get ready with a Molly page, and wait for the right time to publish it. In a year or two when we have more info about Cowl and the Merlin, we might want to do the same then, but for now, we should hold off. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I admit I toyed with the idea of a page each for "Warrior", "Bombshells" and "Aftermath", and one for the rest. :) MinorStoop (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the page is (hopefully!) ready and I moved it to draft space. Since the backlog is estimated at more than a month, I guess we only have to wait for it. I understand, however, that we're free to edit it anyway, there's nothing to prevent you from modify it if there's something you think you should change. MinorStoop (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Say, since it seems that main space articles can be created at will, what's there to prevent people unaware of the sandbox and of the review process to directly create a new article there? MinorStoop (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@MinorStoop: Nothing. In fact, a lot of articles get created that way, and just fly under the radar. Mostly redirects and stuff, but still. I think it's better to go through the process, because it invites other editors to participate. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Redirects do not warrant that much of a scrutiny, do they? MinorStoop (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, they do. Imagine the kind of scandal WP could be open to if, for instance, someone redirected Michael Jackson (singer) to Pedophilia and it went uncorrected for months or years. Not to mention the annoyance many people would feel at that kind of vandalism. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Ouch! MinorStoop (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Christian Mythology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mythology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightgodsy (talk • contribs) 04:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"The appropriateness of describing Christian stories as “myth” is a contemporary matter of disagreement among Christians." -Statement in Question

What I meant was by clarifying it as among Christians, would leave those who would argue for this description such as by an atheist unrepresented. To say among Christians sounded to me like an internal disagreement between differing factions. So if what is intended to be said is that Christians would disagree with the term "Mtyh", perhaps the whole thing should be reworded entirely.

I have changed it to- There are disagreements as to whether it is appropriate to describe Christian stories as “myth”. The other sentence seemed unclear and not concise. Perhaps- Christians may disagree with the description of Biblical stories as "myth". - would be less vague, but I would feel that would be leaving other views out, and I think the slight vagueness of it is made up for later in the article, when views of others are Covered extensively in 1) Modern Christian attitudes, where Lewis and Every are cited.

EDIT 3:44 PM, 28 December 2014- Upon further reflection, Perhaps s statement about Myth holding a negative connotation to some while technically being an accurate definition, would be more appropriate?

UPDATE 9:54 PM, 28 December 2014- It appears another user has rectified the issue in it's entirety, with a rewrite of the opening.

Not sure if I am using this "Talk" Forum in the proper way, as I am a new member, this is my first time using this feature. Feel free to leave me a message on my Talk page, and I'll check back here periodically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightgodsy (talk • contribs) 12:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Good to know...

... that main pages can drag talk pages with them, but the other way around is not true. Thanks! MinorStoop (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that main pages take the talk pages by default... I think a move using twinkle does it, though. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a box you can uncheck, if you want to. By default an article drags the talk page with it.

Feel free to reedit the position of the page in the DF template, if you think it is wise. MinorStoop (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Good to know. I don't do a lot of page moves, so I never paid much attention.

I wasn't sure where in the template to place it. If you have any ideas, please change it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:The Dresden Files bibliography

If/when you've got time, I would really appreciate if you could give a look to it. Thanks! MinorStoop (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you want me to look for. Just general fixes and stuff? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Whether the short fiction is done correctly, I think. Or whether the template should reflect the new page at all. Don't really know. MinorStoop (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. MinorStoop (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Dresden Files short fiction

The article The Dresden Files short fiction has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This appears very much like a partial bibliography of the author. A bibliography exists on the author's main page. Even if this is kept, it needs an entire rewrite. But I do not see any necessity for this, as it can be amply handled via the bibliographies on the author's main page.

While all constructive 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. Safiel (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I share some of Safiel's concerns about the degree of duplication between the short fiction page, Jim Butcher's page and the bibliography template. However, the short fiction page includes a short summary of the stories and their position in the series which only awkwardly fit the pages proposed by user Safiel, making it the more complete of the three available, and the best candidate to be kept. Provisionally, I've commented out the versions on Butcher's page and the template - perhaps a bit rashly, I admit; and I wonder whether we can reach some sort of consensus before editing again the pages.

I'm not sure what Safiel intends with the "Even if this is kept, it needs an entire rewrite." sentence, but it seems an indication that the page is a potentially valid one, and that even in her/his mind, a deletion proposal is possibly premature. It would be appreciated if Safiel could expose further her/his objections to the page - I'd be glad to take them into account to improve it. I might add that time constraints will prevent me from editing meaningfully in the next two weeks - the more pragmatic part of the reason why I commented out the deletion notice. MinorStoop (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, however the level of plot and publication information on each of the short stories goes beyond what can be contained in a simple bibliography. The purpose of the page was to provide a replacement for several articles about The Dresden Files short fiction and the article Side Jobs (The Dresden Files). Information such as the synopses and internal chronology placing the works simply doesn't fit into a bibliography, and information on the often multiple publications of the stories fits into bibliographies only very awkwardly. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Lemme think on it a bit. Not exactly sure how to proceed just yet. I will review some similar articles to try to get an idea. Safiel (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing. I've transcribed this discussion up to my last comment onto the article's talk page, so we can continue the discussion there. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Laws of magic

Thought that you might be interested in this. I would be grateful for some feedback, for sure. Thanks! MinorStoop (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Dresden Files#Plot Section

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Dresden Files#Plot Section. Thanks. MinorStoop (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

Well, thanks, but there was really no need. DF is the small corner of Wikipedia I can edit, it would be stupid not to contribute. MinorStoop (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, but still much appreciated. :) And since it took all three of us to make a team... AtomsOrSystems (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Ayers Rock - Beyond .gif animation

Thankyou so much, once again, for taking a risk, and putting in the extra effort to create that .gif. So far it's been extremely quiet on the deletions front. Perhaps nobody is prepared to put their hand up. Hope you're enjoying your work, bringing colour, and sometimes movement into people's lives. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

finally got them and posted them!

Please see File:Scout Association of Japan uniform change 2015 Kagawa Okinawa Councils.png when you have time.

Note 1: The prefectural emblem for Okinawa is normally red, for embroidery limits, vermillion is okay.

Note 2: You do not need to match the fonts, I think they found whatever worked, but if you could find a font that supports the western alphabet and a matching typeweight and thickness for the Japanese, that would be fine. I can try to find one as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shisa_face.svg was used for one of the badges

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scout_Association_of_Japan.svg can be used, without the bottom rocker, for both fleur-de-lises

I put an exhaustive description of sizes and color schemes in the file template itself.

Once again, thanks always for your help!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Take your time, thanks!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

ps-the bottom one has been changed to green border-council updated me today.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't You (Forget About Me) ;) --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Dresden Files

Ya know, it's not only the edit in itself, it's also the editor - this Schweiko guy is still on the green side. Hope s/he gets the gumption to keep editing anyway, we all were green once. MinorStoop (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. I did the same thing with Skin Game back when I first started editing (which was probably not nearly as long ago as I sometimes act like it has been...). I agree with your edit, I just noticed that it meant reverting to a citation needed tag, and the cite this guy gave for the date establishes that it's in production. Honestly, one could argue that -with a free preview available and the fact that this isn't literature, but an RPG book- the posted publication date is fairly well set in stone. Still though, I agree with you. WP generally doesn't predict publication dates, nor cite predictions of such. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Is your Notepad ++ system similar to using wikEd?

I was just glancing through your user page. How does your Notepad ++ system compare to using Cacycle's wikEd? --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Dresden Files references

Mjolnir, greetings.

I'm half of the idea of addressing the reference tag situation of the Dresden Files, but I'm unsure on how to proceed - what should be referenced, where to look and so on. This prompts me to wonder whether the article should be padded a bit more, or, indeed, if they can be padded a bit more, except perhaps with a "reception" paragraph.

This unfortunately leads also on figuring out how to avoid The Red Pain of Doom pouncing on any change to Skin Game, since he has apparently that page on his watchlist, and he's a stickler for pointless formalities.

Might I intrude on your time and ask for some suggestions on how to proceed? It's something I'd like to learn about, and it would be helpful to have somebody to point the way.

Thank you, and, since today is Easter Sunday, and in the case you can accept it it does not intrude in your religious beliefs, Happy Easter!

MinorStoop (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Confirming, essentially, that the DF pages as they stand are pretty much complete, or, rather, they can't really be upgraded except occasionally, and for minor points. So, thank you very much for your help. Might as well remove the reference tag; I guess I'll do that.

As you recognized, it was a goodwill wish - having been raised in an historically christian place, christian holidays are those I recognize more easily. As for your user pages templates, "Humanist" is something I can certainly relate to, though I prefer "agnostic" to "atheist" - not having found anything that I could recognize as a proof for or aganist the existance of a divinity, "agnostic" seems the more reasonable of the two.

Best,

MinorStoop (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@MinorStoop: Yeah, I was raised in a Christian place, by Christian parents as well. I don't have a lot of negative memories of it, though there are some. Culturally, the West is inexorably tied into Christianity, so I don't really see myself as removed from it entirely, and I don't particularly want to be. I know some people who get all uppity about others assuming they celebrate certain holidays, but they generally do celebrate those holidays. I think Richard Dawkins said it best when he claimed he was an atheist religiously, but a Christian culturally. I still wish people a merry Christmas, unless I'm trying to piss them off, in which case I go for broke and just tell them to go fuck themselves. :D

As for the difference between agnosticism and atheism, I've never met anyone who really believed that there is no god, only those who don't believe there is a god, so my experience with atheists has always presupposed agnosticism. Honestly, to be fair, everyone is agnostic, because no-one truly knows, it's just that some people like to deny it. I know some of them are atheists as well, but I don't really think they're any better than the religious nuts. All in all, I see gnosticism/agnosticism and theism/atheism as two different axes, and since lumping myself in with everyone but the morons out there isn't very descriptive, I say atheist when asked about religion. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems we are two of a kind. :) MinorStoop (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI...and of course, thanks to you...

Template:POTD/2015-04-24 :) Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Check out the main page :) Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: Jade Court

Hmmm. Roleplaying has never interested me that much, so I'm not going to discuss its canonicity. If you think that it's important, fine with me. MinorStoop (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. If you DF roleplay, perhaps you will teach me? MinorStoop (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Lest I forget - Jade Court is mentioned in the groups page; no need I can see they should be mentioned elsewhere, given that their importance is nil. MinorStoop (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Cannabis

I have no objection to your proposed addition and probably should have done a better search before cutting. My objection was the breadth of statements made across the paragraph, which among other things seemed to imply that cannabis enhances driving safety. The reference to the Huntington Post should probably be replaced too if re-adding the material about driving safety, its not a very good source for that.

Thanks for leaving a note. I was a little brusque in my edit summary there, and could have been more tactful. You did better than me. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 13:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Just saw your edit at Cannabis (drug). Just wanted to point out one of our tools you may like Google book tool Coverts bare url into {{cite book}} format making the URL's short and direct. It will turn https://books.google.com/books?id=M2xFyBVL8SsC&pg=PA143&dq=how+many+people+have+died+of+a+cannabis+overdose&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BctIVbWOFMKwggTvroCYCA&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=how%20many%20people%20have%20died%20of%20a%20cannabis%20overdose&f=false into this short link http://books.google.com/books?id=M2xFyBVL8SsC&pg=PA143 and fillout all the info. -- Moxy (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Skin Game

I'm one of those who deem unnecessary to reference a book's plot section (of course, it's the book itself, unless for some reason or other you have to include something from somewhere else), but, since I don't want to push our luck with the red-penned, primary-school teacher, I'll wait a few days to remove it. MinorStoop (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Say, Mjolnir, where can I brush it up about "plots" and "references"? You talk about MoS, but navigating I've found help pages more complicated to navigate than main space pages themselves. MS.

The MoS says you don't need to, but doesn't imply that you shouldn't reference the plot. There actually are other sources for plot information, such as the work's website, dust cover, or IMDB/GoodReads page, but these are usually only used prior to the works' release.

@MinorStoop: Here's the MOS for writing about fiction, and any page with an MOS: prefix is part of the usual manual of style. Check my main page here (the far left column of the table) for some more links that could be useful. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for being so late, but thanks for letting me know. MinorStoop (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

"category:Fictional characters who use magic"

Ridiculous of course, but it may be the least bad of a number of stupid categories... MinorStoop (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@MinorStoop: I tend to agree that it's bad, but not that it's stupid. IMHO categories should be hierarchical, with major categories like Character Who Use Magic, divided up into a vast number of smaller, increasingly specific categories, such as Fictional Wizards and Fictional Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 Edition Multiclass Characters Who Have Appeared in 2 or More Published Novels in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting as of 2013. Dresden, for example, should be in the first two, but not in the third.

The reason I agree that it's bad is because the categories in WP are organized in a Partially ordered set, which is only partially hierarchical, and bears more resemblance to something like the classification structure in Aspect-oriented programming (as opposed to what I suggested above, which matches better to the much more common and intuitive (but less accurate, to be fair) class structure of Object-oriented programming.

Thus, WP categories should be (and are often argued successfully to be best) as specific as possible. This allows the possibility of adding Fictional Wizards to the categories Role Playing Game Character Types, Fictional Character Who Use Magic, and others. The argument in the archived thread seems based on the presumption that less specific is better, which just boggles my mind. What's the point of categories in the first place, if we value inclusiveness and vagueness? It's nonsensical, but it's done. It'll be undone sooner or later (check the page history, Harry has been bouncing around from 'wizard' to 'magic user' to 'magician' to 'characters with supernatural abilities' for years). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, it's the Harry Dresden's bouncing among none-too-fitting categories that I deem stupid. Of those you quote, "Fictional wizard" is the one that best describes him, but the least likely to be kept. It looks like he will keep bein switched around, so it's probably uselles to put up a fight; we can back up the "no-Peace-Talks-too-early" policy, but favoring a category rather than another requires building up a consensus that I doubt we'll reach... Well, thanks for explaining anyway. MinorStoop (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

DF Apocalyptic trilogy

UselessInfoMine is right - the apocalyptic trilogy bit is still there and needs to be fixed. It looks like we only need a reliable reference to fix it; how do we go finding it? I've scrolled a few pages of google results and for the life of me I can't winnow the grain from the chaff, perhaps because there's no grain I can recognize. Can I call for help? Thank you. MinorStoop (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@MinorStoop: http://www.jim-butcher.com/faq is the best reference I can find with a quick search (I'm at work, and kinda busy, so I can't get real deep right now). My advice is to use the google advanced search function, and use the exact phrase "Apocalyptic trilogy" and limit the search to jim-butcher.com, jim's livejournal (I can't remember the url at the moment), and his publisher's page. If you can find one that gives the names, that's great. Otherwise, we'll need to trim down the mention to "Butcher says he plans to blah blah blah" and nix any mention of the names.

on second thought, try also looking up Jim's reddit AMA. That's a reliable source for the names, since the user posting as him was vetted to actually be him, and other reddit AMA's have been cited elsewhere in WP. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop

Actually, I hit submit slightly before you did. Thanks for the help! Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Microphone

There seems to be a developing consensus at the Trump talk page that we need an image that keeps the desaturation but restores the microphone. Thanks again.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and took care of it, by desaturating (never did that before), and also cropping so less of the microphone is in the pic.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: cool. Yeah, I'm taking the talk page off my watchlist. There is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much butthurt going on over there for my tastes. Before I even joined in, it had two clear sides, both hurling personal attacks and one ganging up on the other. I happen to be a talented and imaginative insulter with well-defined political opinions, so if I let myself get caught up in it I'm going to get blocked for sure. I'll be sticking to the graphics lab for my dealings with politician articles from now on. ;) Happy editing, though! MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Images

Hi there. Your work on the Emma Thompson image is brilliant, I'm in awe that you guys can do that! Just yesterday I had a go and doing something similar on Julianne Moore's lead image - I wanted to remove the hair that is blowing over her cheek - and I didn't do an awful job but it wasn't good enough to upload either. So that's why I'm so impressed haha. The Moore job would probably be quite simple for you though; this is the image [1]. If you have time, would you mind giving it a go? Don't worry if not or you prefer requests to be made at the graphics lab. Cheers --Loeba (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Loeba: It's not a problem at all. Take a look at it now and tell me what you think. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You're a legend, thanks so much! Some guy on Commons reverted it (someone I've had a run-in with there before actually, he has bad conduct) but hopefully it will stay. It's definitely an improvement. --Loeba (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Skin Game

Mjolnir,

there might be a way out of the Introduced characters debacle - we have a page for the Dresden Files characters, which we can edit to get something worthwile. I've started today to wonder that, in view of this, a character section for each book may be redundant. I almost posted something to this effect on your talk page, and didn't because I wanted to think it through.

I disagree with TRPoD mostly for two reasons: 1st, he appears fixated on Skin Game without taking account 14 other books and assorted shorter fiction; 2nd, he might state the same things with more WP:Civility. In this case, however, he might have a point; I don't want, however, to edit the DF pages without consulting someone else. I doubt very much that we can reintroduce the Introduced characters to Skin Game (at least he'll have a policy or other to hide behind), which leaves us eliminating the section from the other pages and pad up, where needed, the list of characters.

I'd be grateful for some input. Thanks, MinorStoop (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@MinorStoop: Yeah, if you want to combine the info into the characters page, that works for me. TRPoD has a major problem working with others, but I'm not sure how to deal with it. The problem is that it's hard to report them to AN/I because of their insistence upon being so brusque and repetitive. It's hard to argue incivility when that incivility consists of one person repeating the same thing a hundred times without making the barest effort to justify themselves. They just plead a lack of social graces and go on to be a dick to someone else. If you went on a quest to get them banned, I'm sure you could find a handful of 3RR or slow edit warring violations, or even some personal attacks, but I wouldn't recommend it. You can't claim the moral high ground when you're on a quest to get someone banned. For now, I tend to seem them as more of a technical problem: Just work around them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Will do this way, then. Thank you! MinorStoop (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Closing the mediation

Why did you close the mediation so quickly? The moderator seemed fine to me...

We can find a consensus on the page, but there's gotta be patience. I think we can use the rule of thumb for mediation: a version of the article we can all live with. If I were to add more weight to times an appeal to authority makes sense (like the common used doctor's visit), would that make a version you could be satisfied with? Or, maybe better yet, what if I made it so it noted a minority of philosophers do consider it a valid argument?

Don't get frustrated, we can do this! FL or Atlanta (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Or, maybe better yet, what if I made it so it noted a minority of philosophers do consider it a valid argument? So all is a minority if they disagree with you? At this point, I believe you are being intentionally difficult. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

One of my New Year's resolution was to do some wikipedia edits, which is why I've been putting in a little work over at the Argument from Authority. That is the first and so far only page I've edited. I'm baffled as to what is going on there. Is that typical or am I just lucky? Original Position (talk) 07:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I assure you that this is not normal. That's why it went to AN/I. If this sort of thing were normal, there would be admins swarming the site, banning people left and right. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Arguments from authority

Interesting, but I'm not going to block someone based on one edit, unless of course there's significant evidence of sockpuppetry or the edit was egregiously bad (e.g. blatant attacks on someone), and while I can guess that it's a sockpuppet, the edit and the user's creation log aren't current enough for me to block. Please leave a note at the user's talk explaining the situation (basically a quick thing, explaining calmly that the user effectively put back content that was erroneously added by other people), and if the user keeps it up, let me know and I can issue another WP:CIR block. Also, for future reference, I won't issue blocks in this case merely for uninformed comments at the talk page, since the real disruption is when factual errors are introduced into mainspace; good-faith but misinformed attempts to contribute to the discussion don't necessarily cause problems for the article, as long as neither the comments' writers nor anyone else acts on those comments. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. We can hope that it help the other user to edit more productively, and should it not, a short block will be more appropriate than a block with no warning. I wasn't quite sure whether you were asking for an immediate block; you didn't imply it, but I inferred it incorrectly. And finally, the bit about the talk page came from your header, "Talk:Argument...", which made me wonder if you were suggesting that a block for talkpage activity might be appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I ought to take any action here, at least unilaterally. As I see it, FL or Atlanta is doing stuff quite different from before: gone, as far as I can see, are assertions that it's fundamentally fallacious, gone are the bits attributing such-and-such to the "don't trust historians or English archers" video that aren't present in the video, etc. Maybe it's disruptive and worth sanctions, but it's not so obvious as before; if sanctions be warranted, this needs a careful check first, and it would help to get input from several people first. I've been gone for most of the day, and I'll be getting up at 5AM tomorrow (it's 9PM now) to be gone for most of tomorrow, so I'll not be able to give it a proper look-through. If you still think sanctions necessary, the best route is probably to go to WP:ANI, citing the stuff at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive910#Admin attention needed at Appeal to authority as well as what you linked, and say "I checked with Nyttend, who's familiar with the situation, and he didn't think sanctions a good idea, but here's why he's wrong/here's a factor he didn't account for/here's [other reason] why we should disagree with him". Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll check into it now, and get back to you when I have something to say. Obviously I didn't explain myself well: I was meaning to say that I thought I shouldn't have taken action, not that I thought nobody should. I hadn't yet been able to look into it properly, and I knew I couldn't look into it soon, so taking any actions would have been reckless; that's why I suggested you go to ANI, because presumably someone else would have had time. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm now ready to say: I don't currently think undiscussed sanctions appropriate. I have to disagree with some of the choices, e.g. the first one added here is a professor's personal webpage with spelling errors that make me strongly doubt that he's reviewed it properly, so we shouldn't trust it. However, what I'm seeing from FL or Atlanta is better source usage: what I was talking about before was the addition of information that completely failed to represent the sources properly, to a degree only possible with gross incompetence or intentional hoaxing, and this isn't at all the same. If there be significant error, it's not so huge that someone uninformed like me can detect it — an incompetence block would need input from someone more familiar with logic than I. Between that issue, and the fact that you all are in the mediation (it ought not be interrupted, if possible), I don't think that anything should be done on this issue. I'm quite concerned about the WP:CIVIL issue (see my comment to FL or AT) and am of course aware that other sanction-worthy issues could arise. Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

For mediation

What's a summary of the issue you'd accept for mediation? I thought that what was given really was the core of the dispute... FL or Atlanta (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I view this issue as having already been resolved by a prior administrator. However, the core disagreement as I understand it is whether contemporary authoritative sources claim that arguments from authority are always fallacious, or only sometimes fallacious. The problem with your formulation of the dispute is that it primarily mediates between the view that the argument from authority is always a fallacy or never a fallacy. The view which both MjolnirPants and I believe to be the majority view among experts is that some uses or versions of the argument from authority are fallacious, and some are not. Original Position (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@FL or Atlanta: OP has expressed my view exactly. This situation has already been resolved. The fact that you are unwilling to accept that resolution is tendentiousness and stubbornness. Your formulation of the question might be the result of your misunderstanding of the issue, in which case I believe the extensive discussion that has already occurred between you and I serves as evidence that you lack enough understanding of the subject to contribute meaningfully to the article.

If this is so, you shouldn't take my comments as disparaging. For example, I have a great interest in physics, I am friends with several professional physicists, and I own, and have read a huge number of both popular science books on physics and actual physics papers. I even once won a science fair by 're-discovering' a Tipler cylinder and enlisting my high school science teacher to help me work through the maths. I feel like I know quite a bit about physics. However I understand that the Dunning Kruger effect applies to me as well as anyone else. I've made mistakes in physics, and I've drawn conclusions which I was told (and sometimes shown) were flatly wrong. All of the physics articles on WP that are well within my range of competence are already well established, accurate and stable, leaving only articles about more advanced physics subjects to edit. Therefore, I do not edit physics articles on WP. I know that my estimation of my knowledge far outstrips my actual knowledge, and I do not want this to negatively affect Wikipedia.

However, I don't believe that you are experiencing a genuine misunderstanding. As much as I try to assume good faith among editors with whom I disagree, I cannot resolve the hypothesis that you are making such a vast misunderstanding of the subject with your demonstrated ability to converse on the subject. I think you have deliberately worded that question in order to bias the RfM in your favor. I think you have been deceptive on multiple levels about your actions and intentions, most notably by claiming to want to keep OP's contributions, while undoing virtually every edit he's made to that article. You have ignored the talk page discussion in which the exact reasons why the example section should go are outlined (with me opposing its removal as best I could without engaging in fallacies or arguing against policy). In short, you show all the characteristics of someone who is not editing in good faith, and that leads me to the conclusion that you are not. But I am a skeptic. You can always prove me wrong. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That was hardly a resolution, and he said himself I was acting alright. He said action on his part wasn't needed and that you'd have to make an argument about why "here's why he's wrong/here's a factor he didn't account for/here's [other reason] why we should disagree with him" if you thought that they were. He's not placing himself as the arbitrator of the issue and he's all but washed his hands of it.

As far as content goes we've been around and around on that matter for weeks. The discussion isn't progressing - we need mediation. So, what's a summary of the issue you'd accept for mediation? FL or Atlanta (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

He did not say you were 'acting alright', he said he didn't see behavior bad enough to move forward with unilateral sanctions. There is a world of difference between those two things. You might also note that he hasn't retracted or changed his mind about what he said at AN/I about your competence.

As OP has already explicitly told you, the question for mediation is whether or not reliable sources agree that it's not always a fallacy. In fact, they do, as is clear to everyone but you and Perfect Orange Sphere. If you want to move forward with mediation on that question, I'm fine with it. I have no expectation whatsoever that you will gain any traction pursing that argument, but if you want to spin your wheels, be my guest. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you're loading the word "alright" with quite a lot of meaning :P

The issue about the page is more than that. There are two camps: one says this type of argument is fallacious, the other says that this type of argument means you must assume that whatever it's being used to prove is true. So it isn't just a matter of "do some say this?" but "do all say this?". FL or Atlanta (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

In resolving an issue, it is important to be able to describe the position of those you disagree with in terms that they themselves find acceptable. I do not think that any of the sources I've referenced claim that with regards to arguments from authority that "you must assume that whatever it's being used to prove is true." That is certainly not my view and I would be surprised if that is MjolnirPants's view either. If you think that is our view, then I would suggest that you do not understand what our disagreement is about. With that in mind, is it your view that reliable sources claim that arguments from authority are always fallacious? I say no. I believe your view is yes. Am I wrong? Original Position (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not think that any of the sources I've referenced claim that with regards to arguments from authority that "you must assume that whatever it's being used to prove is true."

What else would "There is a presumption that A is true" mean? By definition, it means you should assume A is true.

is it your view that reliable sources claim that arguments from authority are always fallacious?

My view is that some reliable sources say they are, others say they aren't, other say they are in various situations, etc. There's a range of views on the matter and the page should reflect that, rather than the page giving the impression that it's the unanimous agreement that if most authorities say A is true then you must presume A is true. FL or Atlanta (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@FL or Atlanta: ...it's the unanimous agreement that if most authorities say A is true then you must presume A is true

Dunning Kruger effect is a page you could potentially benefit from reading. Your arguments are really so simplistic and ignorant of the nuances of philosophy that it's (really) hard to believe you're not being willfully dishonest. Of course, you've been warned at least three times now (twice by an admin) about the way you're handling yourself, and yet you persist, so maybe I'm wrong, and you really are that lost. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

These are nothing but personal insults. What "nuances of philosophy" am I being ignorant of? We tried discussing the matter philosophically on my Talk but you stormed off, as you should remember. FL or Atlanta (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@FL or Atlanta: You are incorrect in two ways. First, a presumption that p is true is not the same thing as claiming or assuming that p is true. Instead, a presumption is more like a starting point, or a way of identifying where the burden of proof lies. Probably the most well-known example is the presumption of innocence that the US legal system grants to defendants in criminal trials. This means that defendants are "innocent until proven guilty." Now of course, this doesn't mean that the defendants are actually innocent unless proven guilty--it is very possible that someone committed the crime with which he is charged, but the prosecution has insufficient evidence to convict him. However, for reasons of justice or social comity, the US legal system errors on the side of not punishing some guilty people rather than punish some innocent people.

In a similar way, Walton and Gensler argue that legitimate arguments from authority give a presumption of acceptance towards the view accepted by a consensus of authorities. In other words, they are claiming that if we are looking at claim, eg is free trade good for a nation's economy, that if there is a consensus of relevant authorities that it is (or is not), that the burden of proof lies on those who claim this consensus view is incorrect.

The other, more serious mistake you are making in your description, is that you are entirely ignoring the ways in which arguments from authority can be fallacious. That is, Walton and Gensler both claim that while some arguments from authority can grant this presumption, many other arguments fail to do so. For instance, if the authorities aren't true authorities, or are talking about something outside their expertise, or if there isn't a consensus among the relevant authorities, those arguments from authority are all fallacious (they claim). Thus, neither I, nor MjolnirPants, nor the sources we've cited are claiming that we must assume that what an authority says is true.

I have not seen a single reliable source explicitly say that arguments from authority are always fallacious and 15+ sources that explicitly say they are not. Can you tell me which ones you are referring to that explicitly make the claim that arguments from authority are always fallacious? Original Position (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"a presumption that p is true is not the same thing as claiming or assuming that p is true"

@Original Position: The word "presumption" literally means "a belief that something is true even though it has not been proved". "Assumption" and "presumption" are synonyms. Saying "there is a presumption that P is true" is identical to saying "you should assume P is true".

Not only that, but this sort of argument is used as a counter-argument to evidence. Look at the section of the Argument from Authority Talk page where MjolnirPants talks about how "due to the fact that experts are better than me at interpreting evidence", he does not disagree with the consensus of experts on anything. Like the page used to say, this sort of reasoning winds up defining the consensus into inerrancy. Even experts challenging the consensus of other experts are shot down by the weight of the others' collective authority. If they're wrong, then you're stuck in a position where, as Max Planck said, "Science advances one funeral at a time". FL or Atlanta (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@FL or Atlanta: First, I would to like to emphasize again, I have not seen a single reliable source explicitly claim that all arguments from authority are fallacious. You have claimed that there is a controversy among experts on this point. If so, it shouldn't be difficult to give me good sources that say this. I would like to see them so I can change my own mind on this matter if I am wrong.

Second, look at the second definition of "presumption" in the link you provided: "law : an act of accepting that something is true until it is proved not true." That is the sense of presumption that I am using. It is also the sense of presumption that Douglas Walton and Gensler is using in their discussion of arguments from authority (which is the basis for the part of the article you are quoting from). For instance, in "A theory of presumption for everyday argument," Walton says

Accounts of presumption tend to begin with Whately (1846), and contemporary theories tend to take up their place in relation to Whately’s model. There are several common points of agreement. For instance, theorists seem to agree that presumptions are different from assertions and assumptions....Perhaps the most central point of agreement is that the idea of presumption is linked, more-or-less strongly, to the idea of burden of proof...Another feature commonly attributed to presumptions is that they are somehow defeasible. [my emphasis]

and

So, part of what is involved in taking a presumptive attitude towards a claim is to recognize that there is an authority in the field in question, and to form one’s own views in deference to the opinion of those expert authorities which are presumed to be correct.

If correct, Whately’s point here could shed some light on the workings of arguments from authority. According to Whately, “there is … a presumption, (and a fair one,) in respect of each question, in favour of the most eminent men in the department it pertains to” (p. 128). That is, an appeal to an authority creates a presumption in favour of the opinion or judgement of that authority, even though this opinion might be wrong. The presumption itself is subject to defeat in the face of some other presumption, or perhaps on some other grounds. This yields the interesting observation that, on Whately’s model, appeals to authority are a form of presumptive or defeasible argument (though Whately himself would not have used these terms).

Walton explicitly says that presumptive arguments are defeasible (meaning that they are not conclusive, but can be overturned by other, better arguments) and distinguishes presumptions from assumptions by noting that it involves a different kind of epistemic attitude towards the conclusion being argued for than assuming it is true. Thus, it would be completely incorrect to describe this view as claiming that arguments from authority lead to "inerrant" conclusions.

However, this is useful, it is certainly possible that other readers are making the same mistake in reading this article, so we should add a wiki link to the page for presumption to the main article to help clarify this. Original Position (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

“First, I would to like to emphasize again, I have not seen a single reliable source explicitly claim that all arguments from authority are fallacious. You have claimed that there is a controversy among experts on this point. If so, it shouldn't be difficult to give me good sources that say this”

Firstly, I’d like to clarify that my main issue with the page is that it implies – and I’ve seen appeals to authority used this way very very often – that an authority or authorities mean you can discount other arguments and evidence. If you present evidence for X, it’ll be dismissed based on the reasoning “well, most experts disagree”.

And its not like I’m talking about conspiracy theories like global warming or AIDS denial. Its nearly any subject you can think of. For example, I’ve read what I consider to be persuasive arguments from a minority of astronomers that the consensus star distances are wrong. They argue that instead of being very bright but very distant, many of the stars are actually dimmer but closer. When I discuss this, the reply is always the same: “they all agree on the distances so that evidence must be wrong”. What I mainly want is the page to reflect is that its fallacious to use appeals to authority in such a manner.

Now, for the sources. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10972-006-9025-4/fulltext.html talks about “the following modes of fallacious reasoning”, including “appeals to authority…”, which it defines as “Using an authority figure as the primary means of supporting an argument”.

http://www.nomads.usp.br/pesquisas/design/objetos_interativos/arquivos/restrito/umpleby_science_cybernetics.pdf talks about how experimentation “liberated the scientific community” such that “science became a means of establishing knowledge other than by coercion or arguments based on appeals to authority”.

http://150.162.138.5/portal/sites/default/files/anexos/6487-6486-1-PB.pdf also talks about these sorts of arguments, saying “But, of course, as the logic texts have so often pointed out, such arguments can sometimes be fallacious appeal to authority. One might try to ‘deductivize’ the reasonable instances, by viewing the major premise as a conditional that is true if the authority is knowledgeable. For example, a deductivist might view the major premise as the material implication: if X says A then A is true. But this deductivist strategy fails, unless the authority is omniscient, meaning that epistemic closure of the knowledge base can be assumed. But it is rare, if it ever occurs, that an expert knows everything, and thus that her knowledge in a domain is beyond challenge. Thus for many, or perhaps even all cases of appeal to expert opinion, the deductivist approach does not work”.

Of course, to this, the page doesn’t say its true, it says we must presume it is true. But without clarification that’s just adding a word that doesn’t change the meaning. No one says authorities make something true by saying something. It’s talking about believing it is true just because an authority or authorities say it.

Next give https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEfCVujdfXU a watch. Its from a historian who talks about how lots of historians make errors (especially on particular subjects), and how you need to not “trust what historians say without checking the primary evidence yourself”. However, the page as we have it now would say that you should just presume that what you hear is true.

https://books.google.com/books?id=cRHegYZgyfUC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false on page 81 objects to when “a person says he knows that something is true, that he intends the listener to that what he says as true on his authority” on the grounds that “We affirm the right and need to submit any statement or belief to criticism and requisite justification. None are exempt from this ordeal of reason”. So once again going along with what I’m saying: the page should say that if someone challenges something, saying “the authority/authorities say it so we’ve gotta believe it” is a fallacious reply.

http://www.geol.utas.edu.au/geography/EIANZ/Ignorance_is_contagious_%28July_2008%29.pdf on page 6 of the .PDF lists logical fallacies, among them the “Argument from authority”, which it defines as “Stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. It is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for which they cannot demonstrate expertise. But the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it”.

https://web.archive.org/web/20081218214639/http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=38 says “In the broadest sense this logical fallacy assumes that because a person or group possesses some positive quality (such as authority), their claims are true.”

“Second, look at the second definition of "presumption" in the link you provided: ‘law : an act of accepting that something is true until it is proved not true.’”

Its rather confusing to be using the technical legal meaning of a word in a subject unrelated to law. We should expand on this in the article and make it more clear what meaning is being used, so it doesn’t lend the impression that its saying “you must assume this is true”.

“However, this is useful, it is certainly possible that other readers are making the same mistake in reading this article, so we should add a wiki link to the page for presumption to the main article to help clarify this”

That’s a good idea! We could probably add the Walton quotes directly into the article, with some editing. Just so what its saying is clear.

Maybe give the description of what exactly it means by “presumption”, then say something along the lines of “thus a an argument based on an appeal to authority can be defeated by a presumption with superior justification or by contradicting evidence”? @Original Position: FL or Atlanta (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@FL or Atlanta: Last post here, future posts will be on the main article Talk page.

“Firstly, I’d like to clarify that my main issue with the page is that it implies – and I’ve seen appeals to authority used this way very very often – that an authority or authorities mean you can discount other arguments and evidence. If you present evidence for X, it’ll be dismissed based on the reasoning “well, most experts disagree”.”

I have two points in response:

1) The page as it currently stands does not imply "that an authority or authorities mean you can discount other arguments and evidence." The "General form" section gives as the conclusion of a legitimate argument from authority that "there is a presumption that A is true." A presumption that A is true doesn't imply that you can discount other arguments or evidence. For instance, defendants in US courts have a presumption of innocence, but that doesn't mean that the prosecution can't provide evidence or make arguments that they are guilty. This is made explicit in the article when it says in the next sentence that the argument is fallacious "if it is claimed that the conclusion must be true on the basis of authority, rather than only probably true."

2) The core issue under dispute here is whether the article should claim that the argument from authority is always a fallacy, or only sometimes a fallacy. That is it. And, if experts do claim that it is only sometimes a fallacy, then that is what the encyclopedia should say. Whatever implications you think follow from this claim are not relevant--the encyclopedia should still reflect the views of the experts.

“Now, for the sources.”

I asked for something specific. Please give me reliable sources that explicitly say or argue that arguments from authority are always fallacious. None of the sources you list explicitly say this. If that is their view, then they would at some point somewhere say so. After all, many popular textbooks and encyclopedias and monographs explicitly say the opposite. If they are actual experts, they would know that many other experts disagree with their view that it is always fallacious and so would attempt to show that they are wrong. In fact, I would expect to see essays in the academic literature titled, "Arguments from authority are always fallacious." You claimed that there was a controversy among experts on whether arguments from authority are always or only sometimes fallacious. If there is a controversy among experts on this issue, then there will be discussion of it. Show me this discussion. Original Position (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@FL or Atlanta:Why aren't you quoting philosophers? Why are you picking martial artists, environmental scientists, computer scientists and neurologists instead of actually going to the people who have expertise in the subject? I haven't forgotten that your assertion is that your argument is fallacious (because you're appealing to authorities), and I can't help but notice that even if it is legitimate for you to do so, you're appealing to non-authorities. Seriously, no matter who's right, your argument is a fallacy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Anastasia Luccio and modern technology

Can I bother you by asking where in the books it is so stated that Luccio likes modern technology? The book would be enough; I'm loath to wade through 16 novels to find the exact passage.

Sorry if I reverted your edit; it caught me by surprise. 82.49.64.106 (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

    "A kind of entity composed of pure information. Think of it as software for the brain," Luccio said. "Like a very advanced database management system."
    "Ah," Sanya said, nodding.
    I arched an eyebrow at Luccio in surprise.
    She shrugged, smiling a little. "I like computers. I read all about them. It's... my hobby, really. I understand the theory behind them."
—Small Favor (pp. 288-289)

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! 82.49.64.106 (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I have the whole series in digital format, so if you ever need to look up something quickly, give me a shout out. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Fad

Why are you adding the word fad to the lede a second time? The first sentence should not have fad in it. QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: First, that was a revert, as evidenced by the edit summary. Second, the first sentence is supposed to define the subject. The subject is -by definition- a fad diet. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You did not explain what is meant by fad diet regarding paleo. That's the problem. I can fix it. There is OR in the lede too. I am discussing it on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: The hell I didn't. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You did not explain in the article what is a fad according to RS. Please provide verification on the talk page for what "proponents claim". The part "proponents claim" is blatant original research. Your opinion does not verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no requirement to fully explain every term used in every article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The source is not broken. The text has been challenged. You did not provide verification. QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You are literally not making any sense. Is English a second language for you? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

That was the main point and the other source verified the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You are literally not making any sense. Is English a second language for you? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The text "The diet is considered a fad diet by some mainstream sources, [7][8]" is original research. You added fad to the first sentence but there is no explanation what is meant by that. QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The source flatly contradicts you. Get over it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Please do not restore text when the sources do not support the claim. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I figured it out! You think there's a difference between saying "BDR verdict: Jurassic fad!" and saying "the paleolithic diet is a fad diet." Well... There's not. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not it. None of the sources support the claim. You also deleted a 2015 review. QuackGuru (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop posting to my talk page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a reminder

Be careful of WP:3R. Even if they are IP editors, this is more a content dispute than vandalism reverting. Silverseren^C 22:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Silver seren: I stopped after two reverts. The IP has 4 right now. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Cryonics. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

Peace Talks

MP,

I'm aware of Peace Talks being referred to on JButcher's site, on the reddit forum relating to Butcher and on goodreads. The first two are posts from the author, interested party, none of which have been updated in a long time, and goodreads is not very informative.

Might be, as you say, that this makes the title notable and bound to happen, but I've been following an "Untitled 16 Dresden Files book" on Amazon, and it has been stricken down. Though I know Amazon is not a reliable source, I can't help feeling that such a move speaks against the notability of what we know now about PT a lot louder than anything else in favor.

Can you convince me that it is otherwise?

79.55.132.96 (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Answer here or on my IP's talk page, as you prefer, I think that WP notifies of messages to an IP when it logs in.

Well, the issue here is that it's pretty well established that Jim Butcher has a big say in the naming of his books. He's joked about having suggested horrible names, and about having thought up horrible names ("Semiautomagic"), but both he and his editor have said repeatedly that he ultimately chooses good names. Furthermore, given that the previous books have set a convention for the naming of future books (two words, same letter length, referencing some important aspect of the story), the publisher themselves (the ones who have the most control over the naming) have a vested interest in sticking to Butcher's names.

The second thing is that there's no real controversy over the naming. Previous books have been named well ahead of time, and always stuck to those names when published. So as long as there's no projected date for the book, there's nothing really to debate about, factually. We can only debate procedurally, and given that this is a question of facts, the procedures are generally pretty clear.

Finally, the reason Amazon is not a good source is because Amazon essentially has to jump through lots of legal hoops to put anything up. Any publication date the publishers tell them to use is the one they have to use, and any title they're told by the publisher is the title they have to use. Publishers love to give publication dates long before it's reasonable to do so, so the Amazon page's listed date is quite often wrong. However, publishers are usually less helpful when it comes to titles, because they know fans of a series or author will buy the book, regardless of title, and releasing the title usually doesn't generate as much hype as a release date. So Amazon may know what the title is slated to be, but they can't add it because the publishers never gave them a title to add to the page. I hope this helps! MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll buy that. Thanks! 79.55.132.96 (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI Edit Warring Report

To give a warning, I'm about to open a case at the edit warring ANI about the recent removals at argument from authority. I'm really sorry to have to do this but we'll never get anywhere if you remove everything you dislike like this this often. FL or Atlanta (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I have added it, it can be found here. Sorry but I can't see any alternative :( FL or Atlanta (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I suppose leaving the page alone until a consensus has been arrived at never occurred to you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)