User talk:Doc Tropics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 day are automatically archived to User:Doc Tropics/Archive One. Sections without timestamps are not archived

Welcome!

Hello, Doc Tropics, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Timrem 18:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)



Contents

[edit] why did you penalize me?

You said I vandalized the page for God on wikipedia...but the only thing I did to that page was delete an act of massive vandalism ( in which someone replaced the entire article of GOD with a character from lost) and return the article to its previous state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaji13 (talk • contribsKaji13 (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The original vandalism was reverted by a bot, and your first edit actually reintroduced the vandalism into the article, which is what I issued a warning for. I see that your second edit corrected the situation, so I assume there was just some confusion, and possibly an edit conflict. Sorry for any misunderstanding Doc Tropics 15:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are you back?

Your name came up in a conversation recently, and I wondered what happened to you. Then I noticed you're back these past couple of days. Are you ready to cause some trouble? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi OM! I never stopped reading WP and following certain articles, but I needed a (very) long break from editing. Now I'm ready to start vandalizing editing articles again, and I've seen your name in my watchlist a lot. You've been doing good work  : ) Doc Tropics 15:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you missed the FA for Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, along with its being a featured article. You should have seen the crazies show up trying to have it revised to state that the event occurred about 6000 years ago. Well, some of these articles need serious vandalizing. And you should be an admin? Do you know how many editors you've mentored around here (I had to refuse your advances, because you know I'm not that kind of guy). LOL. Well, welcome back. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Seeing the C-T article make the front page is what really got me going again...and yeah, I read through its history just because I needed a good laugh one day. I realized though, that I have to leave the content of articles like that to the experts. I'm really just a well-intentioned layman who's not qualified to contribute except maybe on the talkpage. On the bright side though, there are a whole lot of other articles where some basic writing skills and an insistence on NPOV content is all that's required. Needless to say I'll still be stalking you around WP, waiting to pounce on your erratic ravings and denounce you to the nearest admin (assuming I can find one who's not already a member of your decadent intellectual cabal). Doc Tropics 17:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You should go to the P-T article that I was working on. There's some kid there who claims he's the leading expert on Wikipedia (does anyone read the Essjay situation), who's making a mess of an article that was getting pretty close to GA status. I need someone to vandalize his vandalization. I mean edit his good faith edits. Cough.  :) Just kidding for the edification of any stalkers. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revert at Expelled

Awaiting your reply [1]. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied on talkpage. Doc Tropics 17:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, great to see you back! Guettarda (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

But, by the way[2], subscription-only links are fine for refs (if free ones aren't available), they're just not ok for external links. Guettarda (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi G, are you serious? I've been away awhile, but were they always acceptable as refs, or is this a recent change? Because we were doing backflips at other articles to avoid sub-only refs. In fact, there seems to be lot of confusion about this point; where should I look to clarify this? But hey, it's good to "see" you again! Your name is another one that's popping up all over my Watchlist  : ) Doc Tropics 17:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't think this is new. Some people have argued that we shouldn't link to subscription-only sources (I disagree, but we should warn people if we are), but that aside, the Chronicle is a paper periodical that will be available at many libraries. From that perspective it's the same as referencing any paper-only publication.
The basis behind that idea is WP:V. The Chronicle of Higher Education is a reliable source.
If you look at Wikipedia:Citing_sources, the fact that the issue isn't dealt with is instructive; neither is it mentioned at Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Further_considerations. The one place where I am aware that subscription-only sites are dealt with is at Wikipedia:External_links#Sites_requiring_registration, but that's a different issue. Guettarda (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the links and explanation Guettarda, your guidance is invaluable. It's somewhat frustrating that the topic isn't dealt with more specifically and clearly, but you helped make sense of it. I had clearly overlooked the fact that the source is ALSO available as a paper periodical, and I was only looking at the site that was referenced in our article. I went back and reverted my own changes, even though it bruised my tender ego to do so (lol). Doc Tropics 18:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Happy I could be of some help. Too many people are too attached to what they write and aren't really interested in feedback.
As for watchlists - I've pretty much given up on mine (happens when you have 7029 items on it). I've been pretty inactive for the last six months or so, otherwise it would be well past 7000 items. Guettarda (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you revert the evolution rather than science headline? I'm out of reverts. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it, but I usually check my watchlist frequently when I'm on. I was sorry to see your name come up at ANI, so I reckon I'll have to keep a closer eye on things Old Fish. Doc Tropics 04:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irony

I wanted to point out the irony in your use of linking me to "wikilawyering" in a possible attempt to claim that I am wikilawyering. The page starts out with "Wikilawyering (and the related legal term pettifogging) is a pejorative term which describes various questionable ways of judging other wikipedians' actions." The word pejorative means derogatory or belittling, which means those who use the terms are using a word with insulting connotations. So, in a sense, its the same line of offense as the one you attempt to prevent. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Ottava Rima responding to someone trying to help them understand what wikilawyering was with even further, grander wikilawyering. That's some quality irony right there. Redrocket (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Irony all around for everyone! Hooray! :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Ott, I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say through all that sputtering, but I do know that Durova and Luna Santin are two of the most thoroughly competent and professional admins on the project. The fact that you are harrassing both of them at the same time, in the same fashion, is a clear indication that you're in over your head. Just quit acting like a jerk and you won't have these problems....it really is as simple as that. Doc Tropics 05:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expelled

So if "opponents" of Roger & Me say it's not a documentary, we should remove that category from that seminal, historic work of documentary filmmaking that's launched the career of the greatest political documentarian of the last 20 years? Tosh. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a documentary. It's wrong, it's full of lies and it's a pile of crap. But it's still a documentary film, as defined by the genre. FCYTravis (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? You are refering to Michael Moore as "the greatest political documentarian of the last 20 years"? Again, the reality is that Moore produces blatant propaganda, not documentaries, an issue I plan to deal with in the near future. Thanks for reminding me. Doc Tropics 20:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, no. I hate to tell you, but the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences seems to think he's a documentarian... they gave him something called the Academy Award for Best Documentary Film, for Bowling for Columbine. FCYTravis (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
People used to believe the earth was flat too. Did that make it flat? Doc Tropics 20:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
We have sources that say the Earth is round. We have sources that say that Michael Moore is a documentarian. We have sources that say Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a documentary. On Wikipedia, we reflect what reliable sources say, giving prominence to the mainstream view. FCYTravis (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am reluctantly forced to admit that most people refer to this kind of crap as "documentary". It reinforces my view that most people are ignorant peasants who shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, but I will bow to the will of the masses. Doc Tropics 21:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested to know what you think is a documentary, then. Every documentary film is a creation of a person or persons, and every documentary film consists of a series of choices made about which scenes to include, who to interview and what to shoot. That is inherently modifying reality to conform to the particular vision of the director. They can be more or less biased, but there is no such thing as a documentary film without a point of view. FCYTravis (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that the documentary genre includes notable propaganda films, as in Triumph of the Will and Night Mail, and that use of either term doesn't imply agreement with the message being promoted by the film. However, in the current political context of the U.S. words get added layers of meanings, so I've not jumped into that debate. However, I did note that in trimming Caroline Crocker's tale you missed out essential elements directly related to Stein's claims,[3] so I've clarified these points. An examination what she taught in her lecture is informative.[4] All the best, . dave souza, talk 12:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining your edits at Expelled, and thanks especially for taking the time to handle the material individually rather than simply reverting my efforts. I have no doubt that there will be lots of back-and-forth like this as we try to bring the article down to a reasonable size. All I can ask of other editors is that they keep in mind WP guidelines which state that an article should be no more than 50kb max (and 30kb is the recomended length). Expelled is currently near 150kb, so we obviously have a lot of work to do. I'm beginning to wonder if it will be possible to achieve that reduction through trimming, or if we will need to split out seperate articles like "Background of Expelled participants" or something similar. Regardless, thanks again for your good faith efforts and civility. Doc Tropics 20:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Belated thanks for the response, these edits of mine tightened things a bit but slightly increased the length, appreciate your commenting on my more drastic action to split detail into a sub-article. The main article was 149 kb and has now come down to 122 kb so progress is being made. One thing about these guidelines is that they don't take account of referencing which has increased since the guidelines were set. The readable text, ignoring the references, is now about 68 kb, so we don't have that far to go. For comparison, a FA I've been involved in is at about 52 kb readable text, which to me is large but tolerable. Obviously a more concise article is best, unless there's a really good reason otherwise. Anyway, your help with this contentious subject is much appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 13:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Tamil language

Hi Doc (hope you don't mind being addressed this way). I certainly see that you're working to improve the article. I fully agree with you about the first few paragraphs. That happened because of edits to accommodate POVs. In fact, we need to verify all sources given that there has been deliberate misquoting to push POVs. It would be great if you could provide a neutral perspective to the dating issue after verifying the citations. Let me ask Arvind for quotes from the cited sources once he's back online. That should help. In fact, one of the cited sources, Herman Tieken, has been challenged here. But, despite this, people continue to put too much weight on that. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Doc" is fine, but makes me feel the need to point out that I have no actual Ph.D. in any field, it's simply been my nickname since I was young, so I naturally chose it as a userename here. I agree that there is some POV influence, and problems caused by unsourced or poorly sourced assertions. This actually seems to be the case in several related articles and some of it is contradictory. I would expect most of the references to be available through a good University library, but I don't have easy access to one. I would be very interested in seeing exact quotes, which could help us immensely. On the bright side, the technical portions of the article seem quite good and I'd like to bring the rest of the article up to that level of quality. I look forward to working with you there. Doc Tropics 07:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Will ask him. Let me assure you my co-operation to you in this endeavour. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spinosaurus

Hi, Doc;

Thanks, no big deal; you must have come through just as I was saving my edit. J. Spencer (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spin-off

Thank you for the explanation. I regret that I might be a little rash. The spin-off I made is in People presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/ In a second I will post in the main film article talk page asking for methods to simplify and shorten the section. You are more than welcome to share your opinions there. Thanks again! Chimeric Glider (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)