User talk:Pschemp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note:

I think interpersonal communication works best when messages are aggregated on individual users' talk pages rather than split, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply. Also, I get confused easily.  :)

  • if the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
  • if you start a thread here, Please watch it, as I will most likely respond here.

Contents

[edit] images on FPC's debate

Hi, I reverted the last three "votes" that I had done back to the images and I'll ask that you not revert until we can settle this, I explained why I reverted and my reasoning on the talk page. As I clarified on one of my comments I am not trying to be a jerk or wikilawyering (although that's a tough one to avoid) and will admit I'm wrong if I am however I'm not going to just stand down on this for the sake of standing down. Cat-five - talk 00:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, it appears I was wrong, I have explained more on FPC talk. Cat-five - talk 00:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. If you are curious, FPC was mentioned specifically in the link from Fir's userpage. pschemp | talk 03:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I've decided to comply, CSD my voting templates and stop using images, but it would have been nice if you'd left a note on my talk page pointing to the discussion so I didn't have to look back at a recent nomination, find my images were gone, check the others, look at the history then follow your edit summary to the talk page. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No screen dumps

on my talk page please. What are saying, he made the pic worse, then removed it? Cache or no cache, it diplayed ok as a thumb before he started messing with it. Johnbod (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't beleive that it wasn't displaying right, and insinuated I was a mental patient. I will do what it takes for you to understand that you were making a mistake. And it isn't Samsara's fault, someone else loaded an image here over the name. He only tried to fix it. In fact, the image now displays properly due to him so you should probably not complain so much about the "messing". The only reason you saw the correct thumbnail is that your browser's cache had not refreshed. IF you had cleared your cache at the time, it would have displayed the other. pschemp | talk 02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It is sorted now, so therwe is no reason to go over it, but the point you are missing is that before he started on it the thumb (as caught in my cache) was displaying correctly. He then tried and gave up fixing it (per the edit summary) before just removing it. Why on earth should I know I needed to clear my cache? But he has in fact come back & fixed it, so it's ok now. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
You edit warred to keep a broken image in an article because you could not conceive that you were mistaken and another user was correct. pschemp | talk 04:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I had no reason to know that samsara had initially made the problem worse. If you had explained this earlier instead of screaming abuse, no doubt I would not have made the edit. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Seconded. Any way you look at it, John, your behaviour was ill-considered, and the discussion here is just taking more time away from more important things. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Talk page

Archiving and reply is not required by any rule on Wikipedia. THe edit history keeps a record of everything. I have no interest in reply to people who misinterpret guidelines. This is my talk page and I will format it as I see fit. Please do not reverse my actions again on my talk page. pschemp | talk 16:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Cabal

About User:JCarriker/TC, is that thing still active? Basketball110 what famous people say ♣ 05:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Erotic depictions

Actually, in his first comment on the review Johnbod posted concern over the documentary, and he and others later noted the article's reliance on unreliable sources. The lead also had problems and the history showed that attempts to rework things were being reverted. I feel comfortable with the removal.

The documentary has scant publication info provided; all we have is two adult film directors and a journalist listed as stars. That is simply not sufficient to meet WP:V. Marskell (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply:
1. They were complaining about ONE source, the Libido magazine one, not this one. 2. You can see for yourself the extensive cast list and experts included in the source here: http://imdb.com/title/tt0498445/ - note the PROFESSOR titles. Look these guys up and you'll see they are published authors. As for porn people, As Bob Guiccione founded penthouse...he is THE person most qualified to speak about its history. I offered to send you the source so you can see for yourself. Are you so unable to admit that you might have made a mistake that you won't even try? pschemp | talk 05:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
In noting remove Johnbod pointed out "The article remains over-reliant on two sources, both with issues discussed at length above." Those two, I must assume, are Libido and the documentary. The first is dubious enough, and the second leads here. It doesn't, cited as it is, meet policy. There's no editorial info provided and, well, Seymour Butts, tends to jump out. Now you are telling me with reviews and so on that it's a serious and sober documentary. I'm perfectly willing to accept that. But you are asking the reader (twenty-two times) to assume a source is reliable when the link suggests the opposite. (Admittedly, that raises questions about how to cite documentaries and to what extent we should rely on them: even if it is a good picture, is it appropriate to cite large swathes of the article to a commercial source readers can't access? I would say not.) Finally, I was less than impressed with the tone adopted on the FAR and the reverts in the history. There seemed to be a total resistance to changes.
Anyway, if you are asking to reopen the FAR, most definitely no. This would have to cycle back through FAC. But don't throw it up there immediately. Reduce the over-reliance on the documentary, find a better way to cite it, improve the lead, and remove Libido, as it's borderline at best. Finally, try to come to terms with the concerns of the two main people objecting. Marskell (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the case but maybe the editors could reach to a consensus about the documentary on the talk page of the article. Documentaries might give undue weight to one view or sometimes interview non-scholars but I think they could be used when a notable scholar is interviewed. The citation of course requires an specification of the relevant minutes for verifiability... If some people find documentaries objectionable, one may instead use other reliable sources on the topic unless they are not easy to find. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Not easy to find is exactly the issue here. And it isn't aproblem with the editors, its a problem with the FAR closer. pschemp | talk 05:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Materials science

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/multimedia/2008/03/gallery_nanotech

While I understand it's not exactly your specialty, I thought you'd get a kick out of some of these. <3 ~Kylu (u|t) 04:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Texas

I saw your name at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers. I just created subcategories in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Texas for each Texas county to make it easier for photographers such as yourself to find location specific requested photographs. Please consider adding your name on the category page and monitor the category pages that contain requested photographs in the area(s) you travel in Texas. Best. GregManninLB (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of erotic depictions

Hey pschemp, I would strongly encourage you to relist this at FAC. Re: "a cabal to support me", though I have felt like that at times (in other rooms), I just don't see it here, and the worst that can happen is that you will get a close peer review to help relist a stonger article. At the very least it will provide a fresh start to rehash the RS debate. My honest openion is that there was a clash of personalities here, although I do see Marskell as outside of that; he judges consensus, but does not participate in its build. I offer to help with bits and pieces; but as an Irish Catholic my research will be limited to secondary sources only. Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Science Collaboration of the Month

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is Carbon.
You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!

NCurse work 08:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POTD notification

POTD
POTD

Hi pschemp,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Wild Boar Habbitat 3.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 6, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-06-06. howcheng {chat} 05:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)