User talk:Duae Quartunciae: Difference between revisions

Archives
July 2007

Why Are you deleting the facilities section

Why are you deleting the list of facilities? Certainly the physical locations are necessary. Also, some of the information included in the article was to answer objections of verifiability. Those pieces of text were to be deleted once it was agreed that the sources were properly cited. BmikeSci 13:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A talk page for Mr Kehler

I have made a subpage, where Mr W. Kehler is welcome to talk with me, until he is able to get his own user page. Click on the link below. Mr Kehler put a response here on my user page, and I have moved it into the subpage provided. Others are also welcome to join in if they wish.

Click on: Welcome to Wikipedia, Mr Kehler. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)

Hello Duae, I thought you would want to know that your sub-page appeared in a question/report at WP:AN. I'm not sure how it got there, but I think someone noticed the page and wondered what it was. I posted a short notice there to explain, but I think it would be good if you visit and offer your comments. They may be able to help you with the confusing situation of the changing IP address for this editor. Here it the link to the WP:AN report. Best Wishes --Parsifal _Hello 03:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. The whole conversation page idea got out of hand. I've given an account and some relevant links at the noticeboard, and will be interested to see if anyone has any useful suggestions. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Having made an attempt to establish some level of communication, I am going to continue with it a bit longer. I have now made a more organized second page at User:Duae_Quartunciae/W._Kehler/Issues. Good idea? Bad idea? Time will tell. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Whew, that's quite a page. I don't think you'll be seeing my name there unless you forcibly copy this text over, but I do want to make one comment, not specific to that page. Links to arXiv are best done to the abstracts, e.g. astro-ph/0701132v4 (the "v4" at the end of the URL is optional, leave it off and you get the most current version, which is the same in this case). It's more friendly that way, as the interested parties can decide to open pdf or postscript, for instance, or maybe just read the abstract, or choose the CiteBase link if they want. Tim Shuba 13:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I agree; though I have probably slipped up sometimes. I'll keep it in mind, especially in the main namespace. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Quality Control

Hi Duae... I saw your new essay on your user page. I like your solution. It allows the current process to continue without interference, but also allows for more confidence in checked or approved articles. The problem with it though is that it can't pass the muster of ultra-egalitarianism, with prejudice against intellectual advancement. I believe that started out well-intended, based in equality of rights and purity of the consensus form, but as ideals those are by definition, not fully practical. And the result seems to be almost a backlash against acceptance of expertise - not among all editors, but among enough of them to stop qualifications from entering the system, other than when a qualified editor gains the local respect of other editors in their field and rallies them by consensus; an inefficient process.

As far as getting real information from WP when I need to know something, I do use the articles, but if I have even a shred of a question about what I see, then I either follow the actual references, or I read the talk pages and history to see if there are problems. Especially for current or changing information, WP is valuable, and I do use it. But as you say, don't trust the information without verifying... use it as a starting point. One of the most important points about that is that an article can change literally from second to second, and most readers don't realize that. They visit, usually from Google I imagine, read what they came for, and leave. Five seconds later, the mathematical formula or historical date that they retrieved could be different on that very same page, and they have no idea that could happen.

Aside from all that, there is something I really like about WP. It's a sort of grand experiment combining sociology, interpersonal behavioral psychology, linguistics, politics, all sorts of fields, into one giant laboratory that is being allowed to self-organize. Even the rules and policies are being edited from day to day. So thinking mathematically, it's a recursive experiment, because what happens when people read WP:NPOV or WP:V as a support for a point? They think they know what that means in a discussion, because they read it when they first got here and started editing. But maybe that policy has changed since then. How often does someone click on a link to WP:CONSENSUS when they see it in a discussion? Not very often, I'm sure. Here's an example where that fundamental policy changed just a week ago: [1]. Is that an important change? Does it affect how editors approach their work?

So, what does it mean when we quote policy that is constantly changing as a basis for making decisions in articles, or even decisions in policy discussions?

I haven't thought this out in detail, but I have been very intrigued by how it works, and when I saw your essay I thought it would be interesting to share some of these thoughts.

At the base of it all, while Wikipedia itself says it is an encyclopedia, another view is that it's a new way for people to interact, and we don't quite know what it is creating. Is something true just because consensus says it's true? On Wikipedia, yes, as long as there are some references that look like solid third-party sources. But does that help us build a more efficient solar panel that costs less to manufacture? Only if there are some very skilled editors working on those articles and they also have the people skills to address the problems caused by less knowledgeable editors who might be really good at persuasive writing, or navigating policy points, or (as I think you've seen in action) just plain ignoring policy and being pushy with fringe ideas.

In a way, it's a noble process. It's also the biggest chess game ever known.

Thanks for your thoughts, enjoy your editing... --Parsifal _Hello 05:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! I'm impressed to get a comment so soon. I really put it up for my own interest and to think about it. I may put it up for consideration in the formal channels after I've had a change to polish a bit. Your point on egalitarianism is a very good one. I have accordingly added a section to my proposal, to underline that editors are not expected to be experts; merely level headed individuals with a solid commitment to wikipedia official principles.

I'm also going to open up my proposal for editing by anyone who wants. Feel free to hack away. If I don't like any changes, I'll just revert them without mercy. :-) —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want more input from others, you could post a note at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Keep in mind, you may be upsetting the apple cart, so you could get some rather strong responses (I'm not suggesting you hold back, or not hold back, as I said, I like your idea... just mentioning that I've noticed in other policy-related discussions, they can get rather heated).

You may be interested in checking out some of these links: Help:Modifying and Creating policy, Category:Wikipedia proposals, Category:Wikipedia rejected proposals, Wikipedia:Perennial proposals, and Wikipedia:Expert editors. --Parsifal _Hello 06:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The wikiproject banner

Well, the Zionist banner was meant to be serious in a way. Please see WP:AN#WikiProject_Zionism.3F for the explanation. 129.170.116.177 17:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I know. However, I felt that the manner in the which the point was being made was inappropriate and deliberately misleading, so I removed it. No offense intended. There may be some way you can mark up a more appropriate information box that can be used to tag discussions where there is a suspected deliberate attempt by an outside group to influence Wikipedia towards a particular point of view. If you try this, keep it as neutral as possible.

In general, however, I recommend patience. The general issue of articles on Allegations of apartheid is apparently being reviewed, as well as the attempt by Hasbara [2] to manipulate Wikipedia as they consider best. Thanks for the note. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Your Kehler page

• By you imposed wfc Kehler is not suitable as my fathers main Email, used by me. He means that he got meanwhile more spam.
• T-COM Germany promised that I soon will have DSL at my home (a bit away from cities in country).
• Our club executives (I am the 2nd in my club, one of 3 sections) decided to take a very fast VDSL, gratis by a sponsor, with an option >16.000 kB/s and a LINUX-HP to be more safe. They offered me to perhaps even completely take the old T-COM of the club (if my DSL works at home) and even to pay the line while I act for the club as its writer.

But I suggest now to put for me personally an existing, sleeping NICKNAME DeepBlueDiamond with a still existing sleeping email DeepBlueDiamond@aol.com valid until I get T-COM; then I intend to become DeepBlueDiamond@t-online.de

ok? - Thanks for help, I think we come together if the agreement works - and then my DSL-lite. 84.158.239.236 15:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think some kind of user account would be a great idea. I don't know what to call you. You've signed quite a number of your posts here with an email address, and that does tend to pick up spam. The best thing might be to sign up with an account here at Wikipedia, and then contact people through the Wikipeda talk page channels. It's what I do; I never mention any email address here for precisely the reason you mention. If you prefer the page currently W. Kehler to be renamed to something else, just let me know. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

(I have done the rename from WFCKehler to W. Kehler.) —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Our problem with by you hidden pages to SHOW

Your good meant attempt to hide sections had a problem here: Neither direct links to an inner section nor even a clic from the table of content fuctioned.

If you are talking about the attempt I made to manage the W. Kehler page some time ago, by allowing some older sections to be collapsed using the NavFrame method, then note that I put it back as soon as you said you preferred not to have it. You will find, by the way, that when this facility is used in a page, links all continue to work when the linked sections are expanded, but not when they are collapsed. But this is irrelevant now; I removed the framing and it is all one long quarter Megabyte of continuous text, just as you apparently like. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

OOPS. I have just figured out the problem. My apologies! I moved the page for you just fine, but I made some of the links from this page go to the talk page of W. Kehler. Sorry; my mistake. It's nothing to do with hide/show; it is actually about namespaces. I will fix up the links. The problem is a bit subtle. There are several different "namespaces" in wikipedia, including a "User" space, and a "User talk" space. In this way, there is the "W. Kehler" page in my user space, and the "W. Kehler" discussion page in my "User talk" space. It is analogous to articles in the "Main" space, and discussion pages in the "Talk" space. Stand by. Links being fixed now. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC) All fixed. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE look into my a bit restored new page to understand a bit my allergy, especially to "mainstream experts", ok? DeepBlueDiamond 10:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have seen your new user page. Best of luck with it. You can use your page to tell people a bit about yourself, which sometimes helps. Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 10:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Unique WIKI-ID also for changing IP's?

FOR UNDERSTANDING: I'm only "W.Kehler".

Our Astro club has got old WIN98 equipment 500 Mhz working perfectly after tunings.

I personally mainly try to act there with my 2.5Ghz XP-Lap.

QUESTION: Could I sign-on WIKI also with changing IP?

You know: I used my father's PC with his DSL and Email at his home.

When I'll get a stable DSL (promised by AOL since 3 y.) for my home by T-COM in "flat country", our club will have a sponsored gratis LINUX-server.

QUESTION: Can I act then either from my home and from that LINUX server with one WIKI-ID?

Could "my page" than(!) be transferred with a tempory later erased link from the old one?

"Our" 3 clubs (sections) are distributed in a circle of until 100 miles. Nearly half of our section's experts (mainly resigning but still a bit partly active pensioners) are more near to me than to club's centre. Could they act either here or there e.g. with different IPs but one new club's WIKI-ID only? 84.158.205.158 10:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Each person should have their own individual account. Wikipedia does not allow shared accounts, and such accounts are likely to be blocked. You can read more details at Username policy — Sharing accounts. I have nothing personally to do with that rule. I think it is a sensible rule, but what I think doesn't matter. I still recommend obtaining an account, but it's up to you of course.

There is nothing to stop you using an account through a dynamic ID. You get the same access to your own user space whichever IP address you happened to be using at the time. All your information is stored here at the Wikipedia servers, so it makes no difference whether you access Wikipedia from home, or from a club, or from an internet cafe, or anywhere you like. There is nothing to transfer.

Thanks, I'll do so soon, at club only with our Administrator in vacancy for 3 weeks (since Friday?). To next page: WELL DONE! 84.158.208.213 14:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have renamed the page I set up for you, to be W. Kehler. The old page now redirects. Sorry about that! —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 10:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The ongoing discussion is now at W. Kehler/Issues. This subpage is under tighter editorial control. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Physics discussion moved

As I said previously (in this edit) I am not going to have debate over basic physics in my user talk space. Sorry, but that's firm. More material was added to the section, so I have transferred the whole thing over to a new section in the W. Kehler page. I will have some time to say more there, later; but not right now, and not on this page. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ellenberger NPOV dispute

You added the NPOV dispute tag to the Ellenberger page--but I don't see any discussion on the talk page that explains what is disputed. I think the page has shaped up and is looking pretty good now--is there still something that merits that tag? Lippard 16:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jim! I think there is. I put a brief comment on the discussion page last month to point out my concern, and I don't see it addressed as yet. The problem is that I might simply be wrong, and I don't have the time to check out all the background to put up a proper response. I simply don't have time over the next few days to do much, but I might try and put another comment in the discussion page. Of all the people best able to address my concerns, you'd be at the top of the list. Suggest further discussion should be in the article page, rather than here. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Military navigation templates in th Hundred Years War

Resolved

 – —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, there were some template changes going on today; see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Who_the_heck_broke_the_battle_boxes.3F. I don't see anything particularly wrong with leaving everything inside a single div, but it should be safe to remove it if you'd like to simplify the markup there. Thanks! Kirill 01:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting if off just for a bit. I'd appreciate your help on another issue. When you have a lot of floating boxes stacked up on the right hand side of the page, they seem to have bad consequences for the placement of "edit" tags on other sections. Basically, the stacking seems to be achieved using style="clear: both;" in the CSS. The section "edit" tags, which align to the right, end up being pushed below all the floating boxes except the last, which is very ugly. I have resolved this problem on my own user page by wrapping up all the stacked boxes within a single container box.

This issue is a problem at Hundred years war. There is an Info box and four campaign boxes there at present, all floating to the right, and they cause the "edit" tags to stack up on my browser (Firefox 2.0.0.6). But when the "div" element is in place, the "edit" tags are correctly placed.

I've been testing, and you can see a comparison of stacking with and without the div element at my sandbox. Is the interaction of "edit" tags with floating boxes a known issue? Is there a recommended way to avoid the problem? Thanks for any help —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes on both counts; see WP:BUNCH. ;-) Kirill 03:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I have put FixHTML templates into the problem page. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oil and water

It seems that assuming good faith, WP:BLP, and the WP:PW (pro-wrestling project) are like oil and water. I have been contributing to this site for many months now, and the only group of people who find it necessary to harass when BLP policy is applied are members of the pro-wrestling project. If you don't believe me, take 5 biographies of living people which are poorly sourced or not sourecd at all. Choose 4 at random, and then 1 pro-wrestling biography. Try to clean them up and remove unverified material and see what happens for yourself. Burntsauce 23:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? Have you tried to do this to other biographies of oh say, the football WikiProject or the basketball WikiProject? No, you haven't, and I'm sure I wouldn't be surprised when messages come to your talk page about if you tried. I have no problem when someone tries to help pro wrestling articles, but blanking them when they are already tagged as needing sources, is wrong. — Moe ε 23:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys. I won't be letting this extend too much further on this talk page. I don't have anything useful to add myself beyond what was said in the alert. Just a heads up that an extended exchange here will be unwelcome. Thanks for the comments. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I won't furthur comment here, outside this comment. :p Thank you for you're time. — Moe ε 23:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

An award

File:Saxo horn old.jpg

Wizard:Able to resolve complex issues in Physics articles, shows excellent trends in new article creation, expansion, referencing and shows efforts towards sharing the wealth of knowledge beyond wikipedia.

Please don't burn out Duae. You have taken on a lot in a short period of time (I.E. WP:PHYS and WP:WQA and elsewhere). Keep up the good work and stay strong. Cheers —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 01:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks! Actually, the time I have spent on Wikipedia recently is a reflecting of burnout in other parts of life. I'm filling in time; and am likely to scale back here at some point. Not because of burntout here, so much as resolving burnout elsewhere. Thanks very much for the kind words. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)