User talk:Other Choices: Difference between revisions

Welcome

Hello, Other Choices! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Dougweller (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Adoption?

I note that you are on the list of editors seeking adoption. I picked up one of Menzie's books and read about a third of it before starting to question some of the foundations of his research. You may inspire me to continue to finish it. I am also very interested in early American history and so I think we have some things in common. If you wish I am offering my services to help ease you into the world of Wikipedia. Either respond here or on my talk page with your thoughts. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 21:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; I am pleased to accept your offer. I'm sure that I'll have my share of "newbie" questions as I settle in around here. I realize that Menzies' work is very problematic, but it was a fun, thought-provoking read. It made me want to know more about a lot of different subjects that I hadn't thought much about, such as that strange old Rhode Island tower, pre-Columbian plant transfer to and from the Americas, DNA analysis of native American peoples, and the general idea that an experienced navigator could extract information from those mysterious old maps that academic professionals would miss. I was struck by his analysis of the names on the various maps of "Antilia" (Puerto Rico) around page 408, and also by his plausible scenario about the forged map with which Columbus bamboozled the Spanish monarchs around pp. 433-34.--Other Choices (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent I'm happy to get started. First off, when responding to someone's post it is customary to start the next post with a colon (:). This idents the post which signals a response. The more colons the deeper the indent. You can also put a star (*), which acts as a bullet point if you are making a list of points. Finally you can start with the pound sign (#), if you are wanting to make a numbered list. Putting a colon before either the star or the pound sign further indents your post. I didn't read the 1421 book by Menzies I started with 1434, which was interesting. He had some compelling arguments about DNA analysis of some communities in and around Italy and the Adriatic sea. He also talked extensively about maps and how European scholars had to know about the "new" world prior to Columbus. By now I don't think any repudable historian could maintain that Columbus "discovered" America so for me some of Menzie's assertions weren't really earth shattering. What was interesting is how he ties these maps to the Chinese, which begs the question, how could the Chinese know about the east coast of North and South America? Tying back to the 1421 book I assume. Still I felt his research was shaky in parts (relying on people who posted to the 1421 website for example) and many of his assertions were based on quite a bit of assumption. I'm a big fan of David McCullough's books and when comparing the two on scholarly research Menzie doesn't hold a candle. I know that he isn't fully off base and my knowledge of eastern history is sorely lacking, so I hope to finish it up soon but I had to put it down for a while. At any rate, I'll take a look at your article below and make some recommendations. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Francis Hutcheson: Influence in the American Colonies

Francis Hutcheson has been described as “probably the most influential and respected moral philosopher in America in the eighteenth century.” His early Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, introducing Hutcheson's perennial association of "unalienable rights" with the collective right to resist oppressive government, was used at Harvard College as a textbook as early as the 1730s. In 1761, Hutcheson was publicly endorsed in the annual semi-official Massachusetts Election Sermon as "an approved writer on ethics." Hutcheson's Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy was used as a textbook at the College of Philadelphia in the 1760s. Francis Alison, the professor of moral philosophy at the College of Philadelphia, was a former student of Hutcheson who "appears to have adopted Hutcheson’s moral philosophy totally and uncritically.” Alison's students included "a surprisingly large number of active, well-known patriots,” including three signers of the Declaration of Independence, who "learned their patriotic principles from Hutcheson and Alison.” Another signer of the Declaration of Independence, John Witherspoon of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), relied heavily on Hutcheson's views in his own lectures on moral philosophy.

Thoughts by H1nkles

You're off to a good start here. Your writing is concise and to the point. There are a couple of issues that I wanted to bring up and I know you asked the reference format so we'll get into that as well.

• When saying something like Hutcheson has been described as.... and then a quote you want to attribute the quote to someone. It is best if that attribution happens in the article, for example, Dr. Smith, Professor of early American philosophers at Dartmouth University describes Francis Hutcheson as.... Finish the quote with the in-line citation as you did. You don't always have to do this but when in doubt do it. This attribution within the text adds credibility to your statement and removes the possibility of what we call weasel words. These are terms like, "Many experts believe", or "Some claim that". These are terms that are used to try and give credence to a fact without actually providing any credible evidence. The same critique can be used for the quote describing Alison..."appears to have adopted Hutcheson’s moral philosophy totally and uncritically."
• References should use a template. See WP:CITE for information on various templates used. The format for the refs isn't as important as consistency. Don't change formats throughout the article, keep it all consistent. You'll see a vast array of various formats in WP articles. The one I'm most comfortable with can be found in the Olympic Games article. All in-line cites (websites, newspapers, and journals) are found in the Notes section. The full Book references are located in the References or Bibliography section. The author's name, date of book, and page number are found in the Notes section as in-line citations. Make sure only books that you reference in the article are in the References section. If they aren't referenced in the article then they would go in a "Further reading" section. Does this make sense?
• I notice in the Hutcheson article there are no in-line citations and a references section at the end. This is because you are not using templates. Start as you did above with a <ref> and then a {{cite book}} or a {{cite web}} template and end with a closing </ref>. In the Notes section all you have to do is put a {{reflist}} template in there and hit save. The in-line citations will show up in the Notes section. See WP:CITE this will better walk you through how to fill out the template. It's pretty easy but rather than me trying to explain it here I'll let you read it there. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The easiest way to use a Template now is -- damn, it's on my edit page but I've got gadgets enabled, Up above the edit window is a row which included the word Cite, click on that and you'll see some templates, make sure you show the hidden fields as you need to include page numbers for books. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Plowden article

I've left some thoughts on the Plowden article's talk page. Check it out and see if it helps. Let me know if there is anything specific that I didn't cover or if you had other questions you wanted addressed. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 21:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Natural Law

Three separate editors have reverted your addition of original research to Natural Law. Please respect the need to find consensus before making controversial changes. Tb (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Do not edit war. Do not attack other editors. Do not make edits that go against consensus established on the talk page without discussing it there first. Yes, you succeeded in breaking three policies with one edit: [1]. ;-) I know you are new, but I think you know better than that by now. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I could just delete your post, but I think that the link you supplied to my earlier edit speaks for itself. I'm pleased to recognize that our communication regarding the Newport Tower has gotten more civil recently.--Other Choices (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It does indeed speak for itself. It has only become more civil because you don't attack me, and have a greater understanding of Wikipedia policy now. Please continue on this path. The discussion has now settled onto a difference in opinion on what constitutes a reliable source. The RFC obviously failed. We are going to need to get third-party opinions in some other way. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I am amazed that you would imply that I attacked you. Perhaps we will simply have to agree to disagree on that one. I am surprised at your statement that the discussion has settled onto a difference of opinion about what constitutes a reliable source. That is certainly NOT my impression of the current state of the discussion at the Newport Tower page. But once again, the discussion speaks for itself, and others can draw their own conclusions. Perhaps the RFC didn't fail; on the Natural Law discussion page, it took over a week to get a third-party response; and the response when it arrived was thoughtful and even-handed.

Heh, I certainly did not *imply* anything. :) Anyway, it would be interesting to know what you think the current state of discussion is, especially since everything that has been discussed the last time (including the RFC) has to do with reliability of sources, and you still don't think the discussion is about that. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I can agree that the question of what constitutes a reliable source is a prominent part of the Newport Tower discussion. However, I think that your statement that "the discussion has settled onto a difference of opinion about what constitutes a reliable source" is too narrow, because the question of notability is also an important part of the discussion, as is the question of whether the "reliable source" test is appropriate in this situation. As Ghughesarch wrote, echoing TransporterMan, a lot of people will be attracted to the Newport Tower article because of various fringe theories, so we need to find a way to accomodate them in the article. That, in my mind, is the basic issue. Ghughesarch also wrote that "we are getting bogged down in what constitutes a 'reliable source,'" advocating a more flexible approach. My own view, as I wrote on June 6, is that the wikipedia policy on reliable sources simply doesn't apply very well to the question of how to briefly summarize the alternative hypotheses regarding the construction of the Newport Tower.--Other Choices (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree we are getting bogged down in the reliable source issue, but I think the way forward isn't to ignore the issue, but to solve it. Notability is usually determined by the existence of reliable sources, so it's going to be way easier to discuss that once we can agree on what a reliable source is. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: changes to the Gavin Menzies page

Hi, yeah I gave up on improving that article, after having been keel-hauled by the corrupt WP pirates running that defamation show. Unfortunately they have gotten at least one or more higher moderators on their side as well, so any resistance is futile. The only chance is that we drug and seduce a top moderator to get rid of the whole bunch! Sorry, but I do not wish to waste my time on those guys. In fact I can no longer find any of my comments/points in the discussion page... That speaks for itself! As you can see for your self, several of the most passionate "pirates" have no other (or at most very little) interests in any other topics, outside that of negating and arguing Menzies articles and a few other in the same field. QED. Jahibadkaret (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Plato

Modified the Plato section. See what you think. Oxford73 (talk) 09:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

June 2012

It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on Astrology, may have introduced material that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When adding material that may be controversial, it is good practice to first discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them, in order to gain consensus over whether or not to include, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Thank you. SÆdon^talk 09:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like I added my new section on the talk page at the same moment that you reverted. Not trying to edit war here, and will be pleased to consider your thoughts on the talk page.--Other Choices (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You reverted twice, when you boldly inserted material. The natural progression is to take it to the talk page after the first revert and then make no further edits related to the material until there is consensus about what should go in the article, read more here: WP:BRD. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed, but the natural progression got bolluxed up by the coincidence of Saedon reverting my first revert at the exact same moment that I took it to the talk page with an explanation. In other words, Saedon might not have reverted my revert if he had read what I had said, or he would have given an explanation for his revert if he had seen my talk. For that reason, in my second revert I invited him to go ahead and revert me if he thought that was appropriate -- I was being careful in my edit summary to indicate that I wasn't edit warring.--Other Choices (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Astrology

The source you used in your last edit to Astrology is not reliable for anything here on WP. The statement is a self-serving, promotional slogan from an aplogetics website run by people wha have absolutely zero qualifications on scientiific matters. As such, it even fails WP:ABOUTSELF, especially as far as controversial material is concerned. Sources like this are the absolute bottom of the barrel here on WP.

Adding "The American Federation of Astrologers states that..." before the statement seiously violates NPOV in many ways. First of all, no one cares what the AFA has to say because they are a sham organization deceptively presenting itself as a "professional" or "academic" organization. It is not recognized as legitimate by anyone outside of the "astrological community", and thus their opinion carries zero weight. Balance on WP is based on WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL.

Next, you placed the quote at the beginning of a section dealing with the real opinions of real qualified experts. That grossly violates WP:NPOV. We don't give extreme fringe views prominent placement in the article when they are entirely ignored in serious real-world scolarly discourse.

Your edits and talk page entries reveal either that your knowledge of WP's nature, goals, culture and policies is woefully deficient, or that you have little regard for them. Your conception of what qualifies as a reliable source has no basis in our policies, and, in fact, is entirely at odds with them. The same goes with your conception of balance and NPOV. Your knowledge of the subject of this article is also abyssmal, as it appears you have relied almost exclusively on low-quality sources of informaton for that knowledge.

Until you bone up on the policies and guidelines, it's unlikely that you are going to make a constructive contribution to a controversial article like this, where thorough knowledge of WP's mission, policy and guidelines is absolutely essential in order to collaborate productively with your fellow editors to achieve consensus based on our policies. In fact, your liable to make more disruptive edits like this one.

Controversial articles are generally not a good place to learn the ropes. An oft-given piece of advice here on WP is to hone your skills editing non-controversial articles on subjects you are very familar with before "swimming with the sharks". Minefields make poor playgrounds. Another oft-given piece of advice is to find yourself a mentor. See: WP:MENTOR. I would be glad to help you set that up. Just contact me on my talk age if you need help. Most of the other experienced editors are generally willing to help, too.

Your responsibility as an editor is to educate yourself about WP's nature, goals, culture, policies, guidelines and procedures, and very thoroughly at that if you expect to make substantial edits to highly controversial articles. The alternative is to find another venue for your efforts, like Astrowiki [[2]] or any of the myriad other astrology-friendly sites on the internet. You will have to seriously consider whether your goals are compatible with those of WP.

The choice is yours, but further instances of disruptive editing will not be taken lightly per WP:DE and WP:TE. Just to be clear, consider this a formal warning for disruptive editing. Further instances can lead to a block or topic ban. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu, your post seems to be a picture-perfect example of WP:BULLY. Consider yourself warned.--Other Choices (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you really aiming to get blocked? Because you just committed a serious violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. You're skating awfully close to the edge. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Administrators' Noticeboard instruction is for me to discuss this issue on your talk page before initiating a formal grievance, so I will go ahead and do so now.--Other Choices (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You had better read WP:BOOMERANG before doing anything. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

@OC, I agree with everyone else on Talk:Astrology, and with DV here. If you attempt to escalate this issue at any venue (particularly ANI), best case scenario it will go nowhere, and it will very likely boomerang and result in sanctions for you. I'd advise you not to do that. DV's advice is spot on; controversial articles are not the place to learn policy and adjust, and if you're having trouble learning how we typically collaborate and form consensus on Astrology (one such article), it may be a good idea to try lower-stress articles first, and come back to Astrology when you have a bit more experience. My first edits to WP were to a tv show I liked, then a few articles on literature. I only seriously weighed in to the fray of the slew of controversial articles I edit now after a substantial time learning to edit, and privately reading through mountains of discussion from others on those topics. I know your views are exactly counter to DV on this topic, and I know that you find his use of language regarding Astrology personally distasteful, but there's nothing out of line with his behavior, and his advice is obviously given with your best interests in mind. It's your call ultimately, but please reconsider accepting the advice you're being offered. It's coming from editors who have been in the new-to-wikipedia shoes already, and seen many others in those shoes succeed or fail based on their approach to handling these sorts of issues. Many times.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Jess, for your words to the wise. However, I just might have to learn this one the hard way. I really think that DV is way, way, way out of line. At the astrology article, I made exactly one edit and two reverts. When I reverted Saedon, I invited him to revert me back if he disagreed with my talk, because of the unique situation where we did different actions at exactly the same time (as I explained to him above). My point in doing so was to signal to Saedon that I wasn't edit warring as I initiated the discussion on the talk page. And from that point on it has been all talk. I strongly disagree that Dominus Vobisdu's advice was given "with my best interests in mind," so I intend to proceed with the AN/I report. Furthermore, when you say that you agree with "everyone else" on the astrology talk page, all of those comments were posted AFTER I reverted Saedon and invited him to revert me back if he disagreed, and right now there are two editors who have expressed general agreement with my point of view, and the other five editors had very different concerns about what I was trying to do (which I answered, still waiting for their responses if they care to give them) so that's not "everybody," but I don't need to be told that I am unlikely to get a consensus for what I thought was a relatively minor addition to the article.--Other Choices (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

File:Yes

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Just leaving this here to inform you; it's something you should know if you'll be working on pseudoscience/fringe related pages. Although most of the community is very tolerant and willing to discuss to a point, ARBCOM has taken a fairly hardline stance regarding editors editing for a fringe POV. You can read more about the history of pseudoscience at ARBCOM by following "Final decision" link in the template above. Thanks. SÆdon^talk 20:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)