User talk:Docboat/Archive index 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Duncan

Your argument is precisely the argument that's been made a number of times, and it's precisely for POV that that material won't stay out. Duncan's isn't a ritual branch; it's a monitor/exposure that came out of somewhere in NY, probably as fallout from Morgan. It's also the only plaintext easily commercially available in the US (and online, as it'spublic domain now), so people jump on it as a "source" very quickly. Ideally, there will be no ritual at all in the article, and it will discuss the nature of obligations. We did that, and there was nothing left of utility or note. MSJapan 04:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much how my page defaulted, actually. No special work on my part at all, apart from the sectioning, which is standard Wiki markup, and maybe a few HTML breaks for spacing. Everything there is mainly just userboxes that anyone can use; just click the edit tab and copy whatever it is you want. The degree boxes you change the text for (after the pipe). The Babel template is a little trickier to work with, though. There's a link at the top of the box to the instructions.
I also noticed that the Duncan's material in Obligations has been removed again, and now it's a duplicate of the main article, so I'm going to see if a speedy deletion tag sticks. MSJapan 05:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application

Dear BrianWalker,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that at this time you do not meet the minimum requirement of 250 edits to mainspace articles (see under main here). Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof.

No problems - not unexpected! Will re-apply after plodding through some more vandalism sites! docboat 06:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Malaysia portal

Hello, Brian. I came across your message regarding the Malaysian portal. I'm glad that you helped out, its at a standstill. I'm rather new to portals too, so I can't help much, but we can try to update the news section and "did you know..." section. Malaysia's Prime Minister had just married a couple of months ago, so we can put it in..and I'll try to get more users to help out. So far, I've contacted 2 or 3 but they aren't in Malaysia. However, if we try hard enough, we can activate this portal again. Cheers!! --Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It will great to work on that together - I am not in Malaysia (located in Hong Kong) but I am often there, and do keep contact. I will make an effort to keep the news section valid, and set about learning portals! docboat 00:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I'll get to work on the articles and news, if I can. I'll see if there is anything on the newspapers. Thank you. Cheers, Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor's index

Regarding your toolset (very nice), you might want to take a look at the index I've been working on for a while. And if you happen to notice anything on your page that isn't in the index, please feel free to add that. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject boxes on Batu Kawan

You incorrectly placed the Wikiproject Malaysia boxes on the main article page. They belong on the article's talk page, and I moved them there. Realkyhick 04:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks - I am heavily editing now, and all help is appreciated. docboat 04:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

I've opened a deletion review about the deletion of The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.. Thought you would want to know. IPSOS (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the "heads up" on that one - I am not sure why ElC made that decision - as a fairly impartial bystander (with an interest in the topic!) it seems illogical. Is he perhaps (judging from his Userpage) a bit extreme in POV? Biased against the topic? docboat 13:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Quakenbrück

Erm, I just added the variable Wappen into the template call. Dunno; didn't do anything unusual  :o) — OwenBlacker 18:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Michelle Dawson

Please explain what the random ABA site has to do with a biography of Michelle Dawson. (It's a horrible site at any rate.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Species8471 (talk • contribs) 06:53, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Yes, it is a horible site. But the main theme seems to be of autism for that person, and any reference to autism would require a reference to possible treatment, and so it most certainly has a place there. I would like to ask you why you feel it has no place there? What is the rationale behind your fervour to remove the link? docboat 07:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.

Yes, I agree something fishy may be going on. It looks like the deletion will be overturned and relisted. I also agree that the article needs to be trimmed. I've done so at User:IPSOS/The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc., where I've minimized the use of the website as a reference (it's still needed for general existence and related "certified" organizations), and tried to only keep the non-controversial facts which could be cited to books published by proper publishers. I think there is no need to explain teachings, etc. in detail, that's what the Order's website and Cicero's books are for. Of course, I had to rely on Cicero's story about the creation of the Order, but as it is not self-published and only gives a timeline of events, I don't see it as problematic. What do you think of my stripped down version? IPSOS (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi IPSOS - yes, the revised article is very acceptable. I like the idea of deferring to the main article to explain the teachings, and it is a nice NPOV work. Should not be any problems in getting that introduced, I think even Kepheros may be tempted to agree :) docboat 23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I doubt it. I believe he, Rondus and C00483033 will fight it tooth and nail. Seems we are about to see... here ... IPSOS (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you think I should be bold and update the article to be closer to my version? I don't think people are looking at it, just the current version. IPSOS (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do. I added my comments to the AfD review based on your revision - I do think the original article was not good and deserved to be removed based on that alone. When I reviewed the AfD later, I was directed to the old, inadequate pgae, so please do be bold docboat 02:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

c vs t summary

In brief, PGNormand has made an argument that no GL ever used "Antient" -- it was a presumptuous misspelling in all cases, and by continuing to use it, we were perpetrating a historical fallacy. His proof was in the AQC Transactions of 1953 or thereabouts (he did give a vol. no.). However, at first he was reverting without discussion, and I was reverting back. He also tried to totally re-categorize the appendant bodies article by his library classification method. I bring that up because there is often a dichotomy between scholarly and common usage, and that is the crux of the problem.

My contention was that many of us learned it as "Antients", and many articles spell it that way. It is also, I come to find out, in current usage in UGLE at least. It could easily be explained as a peculiar and archaic spelling, but PG went so far as to POV fork a GL article to correct the spelling, in qaddition to unilaeral changes across the whole corpus of Masonic articles. He also disputes GLMA's historical position, incidentally, which I mention because, true or not, it's not going to change 250 years of precedent, and WP is not the place to start trying to do that (per WP:FRINGE). According to UGLE and many other jurisdictions, GLMA is considered third, and similarly, "Antient" is perfectly acceptable usage, as was illustrated by ALR. Additionally, the distinction of whether an appendant body confers a degree or not matters little to the reader, which is another area where terms are used interchangeably. So it comes down to "scholarly" vs. "popular", though I've found sources that claim things contrary to PG's assertions (see Mackey's entry on Ahiman Rezon, for example, where he claims Dermott did use "Antient" in the first edition). PG denigrates Mackey overall, but conversely calls Coil unbiased and infallible. Go figure. MSJapan 04:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had a long look at his articles and I came away with the impression of a knowledgable troll. I may be hopelessly wrong, but I would have expected a more academic approach from someone with such knowledge. docboat 05:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Masons

Do you want the masons userbox to show up as a link or like a box as it is on my userpage? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed it for you. If there is anything else I can do to help you, please let me know. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi Brian, about your revert edit of:

at: "List of groups referred to as cults" (LOGRTAC) "23:27, 26 August 2007 BrianWalker (Reverted to revision 152858435 by Will Beback; false and POV information reverted. using TW)"

These are not acceptable reasons for reverting an addition at LOGRTAC, and your edit summary sends the wrong message to others who want to arbitrarily remove their affiliation group from the list. However, when I checked through the LOGRTAC inclusion criteria, I discovered that Freemasonry was founded prior to 1920, so I have sustained your reversion.

I note that you wish to be trusted with powerful tools, so I feel the need to educate you on Wikipedia standards for NPOV attitudes and handling of opinions with which you do not agree.

"False" (or true) information is not the Wikipedia standard for inclusion or deletion of anything at Wikipedia — it's verifiability by a reliable source; see WP:V. BLP has additional standards.

Neither "false" nor "POV information" is a valid reason to remove a LOGRTAC listing, because the information you removed is neither false nor POV — you removed a correctly formatted URL reference. The object of the reference is an excerpt from a reliable source, Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, Harvest House, 1999. Harvest House is one of the top five publishers of Christian Books, so books they publish are considered reliable sources until proved otherwise. Reliable source means a lot of people have looked at the text to correct errors of fact and insure that opinions are correctly attributed.

It appears that you have a theological dispute with the authors, Ankerberg and Weldon, or the Christian Counter-Cult theology which is their essay subject. I am not impressed with their application of CC-C to Masonry. I think their argument is flawed since it forces the straw man fallacy of a "religious group" definition on Masonry, which I understand that Masonry does not accept.

However, our opinion of their opinion is not the basis for adding or deleting cult references at LOGRTAC. This is done by due process of vetting each candidate reference addition against the reliable source standards at WP:V, then checking for conformity with each of the list inclusion criteria in the box at the top of the LOGRTAC list. All references as a cult with implied definitions not specifically excluded, are accepted, no matter how biased, unfair, or ill-reasoned. Since no group listed agrees with the references, the de facto standard of fairness is the perception that every group is listed equally unfairly.

The modern sociological and populist definition of "cult" came into use around 1920. By not allowing references to groups founded before this date, antique definitions of cult (RCC "cult of Mary"), and antique or modern disputes involving major groups (RCC vs. Masons; CC-C vs. RCC; CC-C vs. Masons), go away and so avoid disputes (see WP:Avoid). This also fits the populist definition of cult, which doesn't include any major group as being thought a cult, and so prevents constant complaints (such as yours) which used to occur on the LOGRTAC talk page.

Best personal regards, (Please reply here if desired) Milo 02:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the information - I am not sure I actually understand it (!) but will work through the details and see how I can apply it. All the best! docboat 02:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Truth

Calling terrorists sand-niggers is racist? So, in your opinion, name-calling is worse than mass murder. Well, I see how stable your mind is.

hmmmm .... anonymous racist - bit of a coward are you? Please sign your comments, and then drop dead. docboat 04:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so you're one of those crazy terrorists who like to murder people too, are you?
Stepscurve, grow a brain. And please sign your comments - unless you are afraid? docboat 04:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Ooh, I'm so afraid of getting blocked. Why don't you sign my comments for me, then. If I'm anonymous, what does it matter whether or not I sign my comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepscurve (talk • contribs) 04:35, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
Stepscurve, I don't mind telling u this, but ur a real dumb idiot, u only make more terrorism by being racist, which makes more work for our soldiers abroad, and more danger for those at home. Thanks for that pal, no really cheers, good one Ryan4314 04:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
No, terrorists deserve all the hatred they could get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepscurve (talk • contribs) 04:49, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
  • Stepscurve just stay off my page - I like to keep it free of filth for conversation between respectable and responsible adults, not purveyors of puerile diatribe. -docboat 04:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Lol, you get angry when people offend terrorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepscurve (talk • contribs) 04:54, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Ok that was my bad. But at least can you do something about that. I hope you understand. No offense made.

  • Hey, no problem! It has been fixed - and I hope I do not get slapped for overstepping the 3RR either. See you on the Malaysia portal pages? docboat 03:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC). = Thank you very much=

You're Invited!

Apa Kabar,

I have just joined WikiProject Malaysia and have contributed to the article Malaysian Indian by expanding it. Hope you like it. Regards.

Hello! I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject Dravidian civilizations. We work on creating, expanding and making general changes to Dravidian related articles. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Participants Page! Thank You.

Wiki Raja 06:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

re: comma required for pedantic correctness

I just realized that without your comma, the article was talking about a belief in "accepted atheists". I am not sure what an "accepted atheist" might be (perhaps they are "honourary" atheists... sort of like being an "accepted Mason"?)... but, in any case, I am sure that GOdF would allow you to believe in them (such broad standards!).  :>) Good catch. Blueboar 14:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

hi

I'm just wondering, how did you get the codes for all those userbox things on your page? Please leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

Victoria uni 04:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


Reply: Yeah, I do know some Chinese... Help with what? Do you mean that you want to teach me Chinese? I already have a lot of people who push me to improve my Chinese: my parents, my Chinese class teacher, and my Chinese school teacher.... XP

And yes, could you please help me get some more userboxes? I found a bunch.... how do you get the box called "My User boxes" on your page? Please reply to my talk page. Thanks! :)

Victoria uni 01:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

ok, cool, thanks! I moved the Babel thing around..... Thank you soooo much! :)

Victoria uni 05:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, BrianWalker! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Snowolf How can I help? 00:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

re: admin coaching

Are you up for another coachee? If so, do let me be added to your list! Maybe then ZC and I can get better work on the Malaysia Portal? docboat 17:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no. My online time is very limited these days. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 00:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Msia Collaboration

Hi docboat. Yea, the Msian wikiproject has been really inactive since its inception. Im afraid one day someone might put up the {{inactive}} template on the page :p I have contributed mostly at the to do section, and the cartography section. I wouldnt mind contributing a bit more, maybe for Malaysia article. kawaputratorque 05:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi! I see you're a new user of Vandalproof. I'm a fairly new user myself. Are you getting the hang of it? It's a great tool! RainbowOfLight Talk 07:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Re: Mating

I thought that the line I removed from the article on mating was unconstructive (it was, as you can tell from the diff "IT FEELS REALLY GOOD IF YOU IMATATE THE ANIMALS. LOL!"). As much as I appreciate that different people have different standards for what is constructive, I admit I thought it was more or less obvius that that line was added there as a prank. I therefore thought I was in fact helping out by removing it, rather than committing an act of vandalism. If my assumption was wrong, rather than just challenged by, you know, some guy reverting changes without even evaluating them first, I apologise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.199.19 (talk) 08:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you are absolutely correct, that was an error on my part. It is good that you had reverted the original contribution (and it happens that the software I use may lag a bit behind a sudden reversion, but usually vandals destroy and then move on) and I do hope you continue to contribute to Wikipedia. If I may give some advice to you though? Firstly, it is better to sign up for a name - it is good to have a name to put to an edit ... and remember to use the ~~~~ to sign your edits. Secondly, do take the time to play around in the sandbox, and then jump in to contribute to the encyclopaedia. It is a worthy cause! Be happy :) docboat 00:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Hi Brian, I enjoyed your comments on the homeopathy article but sadly you/we are up against a heap of science zealots who believe it is crap. This prejudicial disbelief which is recycled constantly within the so-called 'scientific' community keeps a strong ambient disbelief and hatred going against it in polite society and so many folks never see beyond it. It is 29 years this month since I was first introduced to homeopathy and I was amazed by it. I often still am! I am these days a mere historian of the subject but I still use it daily for myself, my family and friends. How do you think this article can be improved, Brian? thanks best wishes Peter morrell 17:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter! The article is indeed completely messed up by anti-homeopathic sentiments which, although valid and need to be documented, have taken over the article and dominate. They give a seeker the wrong information due to WP:UNDUE. How to fix it? Well, I think the WP:GAR is a good start. I would work there to gain consensus with a group of uninvolved editors, and as I have not edited the article, and know a bit about the topic, that is what I think I should do. You could also start another page on your sandbox (if you do, let me know and all the others who want to contribute positively) and the article can be re-written and presented to the good reviewers as an alternative. All the best! docboat 00:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian; please visit here[2] and give some long thought to making a good comment or vote. I shall do same later. My focus will be on what I regard as the basis of opposition to the article vs. that of the neutral and pro folks. cheers Peter morrell 06:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi thanks for providing all these info and arguments. As you can tell English in mot my first language but I tried to do my best to contribute mainly to this. I know about Homeopathy from Vithulkas students in Greece.

If you have time you can take a look to what I found about the already cited references and you will be surprised. [3] Best wishes--Sm565 20:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, BrianWalker! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. βcommand 01:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject:Malaysia collaboration of the Month is Malaysia

Hi there. Based on our votes, we have selected Malaysia to be our Collaboration of the month for October 2007. Please feel free to contribute and make suggestions to improve the article. Thanks! kawaputratorque 05:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI

MSJapan recently decided to run for Admin... unfortunately he took the opposition to his candidacy very badly. It looks like he may be leaving the project completely. While he has every right to do so (and I can understand the reaction), I for one would miss his contributions. More importantly, I think some brotherly advice and support might chear him up. Just thought you might like to know. Blueboar 17:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi Brian:

I much appreciate your support for my comments in the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion about Whig.

I have found it very difficult to get any attention paid to my concerns about "fair processes". It helps to have another voice.

Thank you, Wanderer57 02:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Feedback from another guy

Sorry mate, I'm new. And, perhaps this is a good time for a question, but I made the response paragraph like a week or so ago, not realizing I should post on YOUR talk page, and you didn't respond for that time. I removed the first part I guess by accident. It's funny you mention Strunk, he was an essay topic on the PSAT test I took a couple weeks ago, I'll have to get his book. Also, I wasn't aware UK English was different grammatically from American, only in spellings. (color, colour)If I recall correctly though, your first comment was nothing more than encouraging me to continue to make changes even though you were reverting my own. It had no explanation as to why you did so. Lastly, is there a personal message system on wikipedia, or is this the only form of communication? It seems inefficient to be editing a talk page that doesn't send an alert to you, only to me. Or I guess I can edit yours? I'll put this on yours too. Sorry for the confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anus Goblin (talk • contribs) 02:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think the way it is set up here is confusing for messaging - whose page do we use? I generally try to respond under the question, so the sequence remains. An alert is sent to the person whose page is edited. Good to meet you! docboat 03:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

CTs

It wasn't just the use of "Chinese" I was objecting to; it was also the unqualified use of "terrorist". (No doubt they didn't see themselves the same way.) Hence I added " ". Grant | Talk 13:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with you, even if I do like the compromise. The CTs themselves knew they used terror - that was how they forced the kampongs to provide food and money, and it follows the explicit commands and admonishments of Chairman Mao (whose brand of communism they were propagating) and it is also undoubted that their acts - collective and individual - were based on the spread and use of terror. You remember, they were trained initially to fight the Japanese in Malaya, and no holds were barred there either. docboat 05:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching

I'm currently coaching User:Useight, so I might not have time, but you seem like you're on the right track. You definitely need some more experience before you head to RFA, but I think you'll be a good potential admin. I recommend you do an editor review first and see what suggestions turn up. My suggestions for you are to participate in WP:RFA, do work in speedy deletion (this aspect is actually pretty important), and get an article to GA or FA status, or at least out of stub-class if you haven't already. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 18:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

dont know what to do nemore

Hey Brian/docboat, I just dont know what to say anymore to KCKaySee, seem that he/she doesnt want to listen.. but only believe his/her opinion matters so much. --Zack2007 13:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - I have commented on the talk page, and suggested an admin be called to help. docboat 00:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Malaysia

Hi, Brian. I believe we've met before, haven't we? Anyway, I happenned to stumble upon your edits on Malaysia and everything else connected to it. Since I have tons of free time, I decided to help out. Is there anything I can do to help?

PS:I really need the job badly; I'm bored out of my wits. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 15:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Zachary! Yes, we have chatted before :) Sure, lets get to work on Malaysia! I have been a bit slack recently, and I see we are both getting coaching, so let's see how much we can learn and contribute. How do you want to start? I was thinking that the first thing we need is up-to-date news in the portal page. I had made some additions, but did not have the follow through needed. docboat 04:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, that depends on how many sources you have at your fingers. [4] is a good place to start. I agree that the news section at the portal is outdated. Let's see what we can get! --Zacharycrimsonwolf 04:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You can try [5] too. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 04:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Click there to open your card! → → →

Able to help?

Hi there, I have been looking for admins who have the time and patience to coach me for possible later adminship. Are you able to take me on? docboat 07:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Sure. Do you want to work on a per case basis (assisting) or something like more formal (theoretical)? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 10:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I would be interested in getting practically active, and backing it up with theoretical understanding. Something like trying an aspect of Wikipedia, and reading the information behind the process. But basically I would do pretty much what you tell me to do :) Many thanks for replying! docboat 00:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Well Brian. I think this will be highly helpful for a start. Please read it carefully and give me you your feedback once you finish reading. In case you would only need to read the final resolution of this case, please find it here. We can move on after that. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh boy - this will take some time to read and digest. I will make a subpage for comments and have a (much) longer read and think. docboat 05:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Where can we talk about this? docboat (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Still on it

Hi again - man you have given a lot to think about - I am still ploughing through the papers I printed out on your very complicated case, and will have put my thoughts together soon. Good things to think about, but I hope it is not always so complicated! docboat (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK - where can we talk about it? docboat (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry Brian. I've been very busy lately. I'll be fully back soon. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

German-English translations/Gründerzeit

Ich weiss gar nicht, ob Du schon diese Website benutzt, aber sie hilft mir oft, schwierigen Text in deutscher Sprache zu verstehen (und dann kann ich ihn übersetzen). Natürlich ist sie nicht perfekt, aber es gibt auch ein Forum, wo man unbekannte Wörter erfragen kann.

Mein eigenes Ziel ist die Übersetzung aller deutschen WP-Artikel über Städte und Gemeinden in Deutschland. Wie lange wird diese Aufgabe dauern, meinst Du? Kelisi (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ungefähr eine Ewigkeit, so schätze ich! docboat (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

WP Malaysia December 2007 collaboration of the month

Hi there, based on this month's total votes, our collaboration of the month will be none other than our capital city as well as Malaysia's primate city of Kuala Lumpur! Please feel free to make improvements on the article, or comment or give ideas on ways to further improve the quality of the article. Thanxzsz. p/s I didnt know u speak German. Das ist sehr geil! Hehe, im sort of trying to learn, but my deutsch is still hopeless. :) kawaputratorque 04:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/Ryan Postlethwaite 3

Hi Docboat. Many thanks for your kind words on my editor review, it means a lot to me. You mentioned bringing items to my talk page if you felt something needed addressing - well please do, I try my best here and if there's a problem, I like to sort it out as early as possible. It's important that I know there's a problem, if I don't, I can't do anything about it. I'll get round to giving you an ER myself over the next couple of days. Best regards, and thanks again :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 19:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Open Mind

Greetings of the season James. A small point from the homeopathy talk page </groan> but you took exception to the concept of an open mind - and I must ask if you are certain on that point? AFAICT, a certain signpost to false results in any scientific endeavour is to see a closed mind. Not, of course, an empty mind - quite different from being open minded. Peace and joy for the New Year! docboat (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

An open mind as in being receptive to new ideas and information is highly desirable. However, this is rarely what anyone means when they use the term. Practically every time I see someone use the term "open mind", what they mean to imply is that the person the are talking to is being close minded because they are not accepting their ideas. Hence, using the term "open mind" is often some form of concealed attack at the opposition. It has been my experience that the vast majority of people who use the term "open mind" faily to realise the difference between someone rejecting their ideas because they lack merit and someone rejecting their ideas because they cannot accept new concepts.

So you see open mind never really means open mind. What it really means is accept a lower standard of evidence. Like for example when you said it before "The reporting of those anecdotal records has been documented sufficiently in the appropriate homeopathic publications, but not to the "gold" standard of double blind placebo etc etc. They are most certainly empirically interesting to all who wish to keep an open mind" You were clearly advocating that these anecdotes are worth something when science says otherwise. It is not close minded to reject bad evidence but this is always the intended implication. Open mind is a term like family values. It's a term that doesn't actually mean what it says but no one would dare oppose what the person using the term says because they are then closed minded/hate familes. This is why I universally oppose the term. If the term actually meant what it implied I'd be all for it. JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, we can almost agree. Clearly advocating these anecdotes does not imply to accept the anecdotes - but to look at them and ask if there is any merit in them. It is one area of research where we look at a cohort study, which is a collection of anecdotal evidence, and has been used to justify giving antibiotics to treat ear infections. Wrong, but anecdotally convincing. I think of an open mind as in the examples of Koch and Pasteur, whose enemies among the medical community were well-respected, and closed minded. That is my understanding of the term. But then again, my use of English also includes the term "gay" to mean happy/joyful/light-hearted. docboat (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that using a cohort study is one thing when RCT are not available. It is another to prefer a cohort design when RCT are available (as was the case with homeopathy). Also cohort studies are a far of a lot better controlled than anecdotes. Cohorts studies keep track of the hits and misses will anecdotes tend to only report the hits. With a cohort study you can also control for many other factors with techniques such as a multiple regression. However, as far as the term open mind goes, I guess we can just conclude that it has become a tainted term for me due to the misuse of it by many. I'm sure for others though that it carries a different meaning. JamesStewart7 (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Selassie

I have issues with the mediation as premature but, while not knowing you, I am happy to accept your mediation and go along with the process in spite of reservations. I am committed to researching for better and more substantial refs re the divinity issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Tramways in Strasbourg

Hello, i'm eager to proofread your work and am very grateful to you to take it up. Thanks again and happy new year. RCS (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Ryan Lowe: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. ChetblongTalkSign 12:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi back! Yes, I tend to warn only obvious vandals, ones with a bit of history, or where the vandalism is really obnoxious. Using Twinkle, the feed flows so fast ... so many vandals, so little time! Keep up the good work! docboat (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop vandalism of Joseph Liu Xinhong page

This person is bishop of Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association. The fact that he was excommunicated by pope is irrelevant. he still is bishop + he is not in communion with Roman catholic church.

He belongs to Catholic schizmatic church called - Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association

If you do not know subject, or are not interested in it, I please you to stop deleting or reverting articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumaterana (talk • contribs) 14:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WP Malaysia: January 2008 collaboration

Hello, based on the total votes collected in December, our collaboration of the month will be ♦ Mahathir bin Mohamad ♦. Please feel free to make improvements on the article, or comment or give ideas on ways to further improve the quality of the article. Thanks. kawaputratorque 18:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 46 support, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral. Thanks for supporting me!

-Djsasso (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 05:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your support
Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

If it helps, I was a little worried about you because... well, you know my opinions of Peter and Whig, and I thought you were "in" with them. I did realise a while ago that you thought for yourself, but never quite got around to officially recanting my earlier position, so... sorry! Adam Cuerden talk 18:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Hi Docboat - thanks for your participation in my request for adminship. I took note of your remarks about appreciating my response to conflict, and I'll try to make sure that it doesn't change and that I never allow myself to become condescending or curt just because I happen to have a mop (the janitor at my junior high school completely let the mop go to his head - he was a jerk). Anyway, the RfA passed 52/0/0, and I'm now in possession of a shiny new mop. If I can ever help you with anything, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget!

Dear Docboat, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget. 16:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

My request for adminship was successful at 64/1/2! Many thanks for your participation and I will endeavor to meet your expectations. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

New Arbcom case (maybe)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Homeopathy The idea of it is not to censor anyone, but to try and get some guidelines that will end some of the perennial wars once and for all. Adam Cuerden talk 11:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Malaysia announcement

Hi there. I just want to announce that this month's collaboration will be ΦЏ Orang Asli ЏΦ. You are encouraged to participate in improving the quality of this article by however means you wish. I would suggest that our target by the end of the month would be for this article to achieve a Good Article status. Happy editing! kawaputratorque 13:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and LEAD

As you requested, I would be glad to have you explain to me what you think NPOV means, and what the WP policies are for the LEAD of an article.--Filll (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I would be glad to help clear up some misapprehensions, but first off, do you feel OK? You have not been in good form, hostile even - and that is not a good place to be in when resolving misapprehensions. docboat (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, no answer, so I assume you are just fine. OK then. You ask about WP:NPOV in a tone which assumes I am not familiar with the page. What I think you mean to ask is why I do not share your POV on a topic (in this case Homeopathy but there will be others) and you assume that I therefore do not have a neutral POV because you feel that you do, ergo I do not. Now then, if you can agree that I have understood the question, what about the answer?

From the lead to the article, it states: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.

Now, taking the homeopathy article as an example, we see very different perspectives being argued about. Multiple perspectives, we read, should be presented fairly - which is certainly not the case on that article, where some editors present a view which is meant to "debunk" or "promote" the topic. But that is not what we are supposed to do. We need to illuminate the topic. Undue weight ... asserted as being "truth" .... can you see how that conflicts with the determined efforts of anti-homeopaths on the one hand and pro-homeopaths on the other, who feel they must present the "truth" and that homeopathy is quackery or a panacea? Made accessible to the reader ... the current style is to present a statement, and then a countering statement, to "balance" the article for fairness - but it makes the article inaccessible. Not just the most popular view .... Readers must be allowed to form their own opinions ... do you remember how I rebutted the argument of one homeophobe (NB neologism) who insisted it was a "duty" to protect the public from being lead to believe that homeopathy works? That is not our job, I said.

Neither sympathetic nor in opposition to the subject - precisely that is what I have held against the slew of homeophobes whose avowed aim it is to present homeopathy in such a manner as to convince readers that homeopathy is wrong, quackery, even fraud. Now to make clear, however, I am an allopathic doctor. I do not prescribe homeopathy, but I do see it as useful - even excellent - for many of my patients who seek out one of our homeopaths. I am based in science, and my intellect is not particularly blunted - at least not yet. So please try to settle down, regard my POV reflectively, and see if your attitude of implied hostility is justified.

Now, is that enough for a start? docboat (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok I am glad you accepted this challenge. Can you tell me what relevance you think WP:FRINGE is in this area?--Filll (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No Filll this is not a challenge, not an attempt to find our who is "right" or"wrong", but an attempt to find understanding. You have a lot of good points to make, I am sure, but neither of us is going to have the perfect answer. But as you seek to see where I stand on fringe subjects being illustrated on Wikipedia, my personal point of view is that a fringe subject needs t be illustrated as a fringe subject. It is shown - as the subject adherents believe it to be - in all the gory detail. You need to see what it is from the POV of those who espouse the topic. Then - and only then, is it proper, IMHO to fill in the blanks, present evidence to the contrary, etc. For example, if your fringe topic adherents passionately believe the moon is made of Stilton cheese, you need to be allowed to demonstrate just what these adherents do believe. It matters not that they have no evidence to back it up, or evidence which is spurious. When they are done then you show the results of manned space flight to the moon, and can demonstrate very factually why others believe it is in fact an excellent form of Edam. Or whatever. I think this would allow for the topic to be better (more clearly) described, and the opposing understanding also to shine through. Neither viewpoint would be cluttered by verbiage of opponents. And even better, obstreperous editors would be quickly found, and shown the door. Now this is not what WP:FRINGE would agree with in entirety, but it is my opinion of where the relevance should be. Thoughts?? BTW, I am off to Germany for 10 days - writing this from the airport. So I may be delayed in replying. It will be good to get to know you better, I think it will be fun, so hang in there. docboat (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from. But this violates the principles on which Wikipedia operates. Wikinfo operates on the principles you are suggesting, with pure "pro" and "con" articles on all subjects by design. So are you proposing to change all the foundational principles and policies of Wikipedia?--Filll (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so - I suppose (hopefully) that we deal with reasonable people, who behave reasonably.—Preceding unsigned comment added by docboat (talk • contribs) 5 February 2008

Ok, would you care to show me where the phrase "reasonable people who behave reasonably" appears in the NPOV rules? This claim of yours does appear to be a way to construct some new principles for Wikipedia out of whole cloth and then try to unilaterally impose your own made-up rules. By this rule, one should essentially allow anyone at all to do anything they want on Wikipedia, since we just assume they are all reasonable people behaving reasonably (remember WP:AGF and WP:BITE). If others think these editors are reasonable people, then all we need is the editor in question to claim he or she is reasonable, and should be allowed to put whatever they want in Wikipedia (by WP:AGF). So it looks like a way to introduce a huge loophole into NPOV to me.

My understanding of NPOV, which evolved from careful tutelage of senior editors and careful reading and rereading of the regulations and rules on Wikipedia is that NPOV is close to the mainstream view. If there is a mainstream view and a WP:FRINGE view, then the FRINGE view is presented, but the two views are balanced in proportion to their prominence.

For example, articles on the Flat Earth Society are written mainly from the perspective of the mainstream which believes the earth is not flat. Articles on intelligent design are written from the perspective of the mainstream in that area, for the most part, since fewer than 1% of the scientists in the relevant fields subscribe to intelligent design. Evolution here is not written from the perspective of the creationists, since that is a fringe view of evolution.

This of course angers many. Creationists and intelligent design supporters and flat earth believers do not like this at all. However, that is what NPOV means. If we follow the "reasonable people" dictum, all of these would be written from the perspective of the FRINGE views. And maybe even evolution would be written from the creationist viewpoint, to be "fair". However, this would produce a product that is far less useful to the average user, although it might please some in the relevant FRINGE community.

There is unfortunately no way to avoid irritating FRINGE elements and keep NPOV. There are other Wikis which do not have NPOV. And I have suggested them to editors who did not like NPOV over the last year. And many of them have gone to those other Wikis and become productive there and even admins etc. So NPOV is not for everyone for sure. I did not like it or understand it at first myself. However, as Jimbo says "NPOV is nonnegotiable". And if a person wants to edit here, they have to understand it, and follow it or there will be trouble. --Filll (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Filll, this is a simple discussion, an exchange of views. No-one is suggesting that rules need to be changed. But it is my opinion that NPOV does not mean that majority opinion must occupy majority space. It does mean that a view should be represented in a way which does not cause an opinion to be made based on rhetoric or style. Facts. Verifiable proofs. Put in a non-judgemental manner.
Now take your examples above. I agree with your assessment. But an article on Creationism needs to be written in a very different manner than an article on Evolution - the one will present the statements and beliefs from one POV (with opposing information to balance) and the other will be reversed in content. I should be able, in an encylopaedia, be able to understand the topics as they are understood by the proponents and opponents, in a logical, clear and concise manner. Such as it is in Homeopathy, we need to see precisely what homeopathy is from the standpoint of homeopathy, first and foremost, and then see the facts against homeopathy. That, IMHO, would be NPOV. What I see, however, is people who oppose homeopathy from whatever perspective gathering together to make that opposition clear at every avenue on the article. That is wrong. It makes the article unclear, certainly less than optimally NPOV and plainly bad. It is not supportive of fringe opinion at all - it merely provides a platform for the fringe to be represented, in a fair manner, without bias. One says "this is what they believe" eg that the earth is flat, and then one says "and this is what we see from space" - there is no bias. Now in homeopathy we see that formula repeated after every sentence (I exaggerate a tad here) and I am saying that these opposing views need to be placed differently: first the case for (what is it) and then the case against (what science sees) - does that sound so difficult? docboat (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is not difficult; as I noted, that is the principle under which Wikinfo operates. It just is not the favored design for Wikipedia articles, and is discouraged.--Filll (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Docboat! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Vielen Dank! Notiert und vermerkt! docboat (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)