Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:26, 3 January 2010

	Jim Bell has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 1, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cryptography: Computer science Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Philosophers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet culture Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Anarcho-article Template:Maintained

"Dead pool game"

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call his "game" an "assassination market game" instead of "dead pool game". There are a few distinct differences between the two terms, and "assassination market" seems to fit here better. Jgw (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done Skomorokh 17:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

GA notes

Article is well cited and fits GA standards, but I have two issues. First, the only picture in the article shows someone else, which could be confusing. Second, I had difficulty keeping the timeline straight. The "Politics" section goes up to 2002, then "Investigation" jumps back to 1997, and it wasn't clear what if any connection that had with his essays. Apparently in July 1997 he arranged a plea bargain, but then "completed his sentence" on April 15, 1998 according to the first sentence of "Release", after serving 11 months according to the infobox. Something doesn't match up. He probably didn't start serving his sentence in July, either. Cite from that sentence dates from 1997 so it's only good for citing the amount of the fine. Can cites and be combined, since they're used together and are related? Gimmetrow 07:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your rigourous reading; the date on one of the references was awry and I have significantly reworked the timeline so that it should now be coherent. I have searched high and low for a free image of Bell but to no avail. I thought including some image would be better than others. Do you think, given that Bell is in prison for a long stretch, a fair use rationale for an unfree image would be possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skomorokh (talk • contribs) 08:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Solid fair use involves commentary on the image (like details of a painting), or iconic historical photographs. If there's a photo of a defining event in his life, and the photo appeared in a lot of press, maybe.

The lead section could probably be two paragraphs. It seems fairly standard, unless the article is really short, to have one paragraph identifying why the subject is important, and a second paragraph summarizing broadly the rest of the article. Gimmetrow 17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I'll get working on the lede. There are no pictures that I am aware which meet those criteria, but I presume policy wrt images has not changed of late and imageless articles can still qualify as GA? скоморохъ 20:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Imageless is fine if no images are possible, WP:WIAGA#6. I think the lead might be a bit long now at four paragraphs ;) Gimmetrow 23:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you're killin' me. I'll get to work. скоморохъ 23:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, looks like a GA now. I did remove the one image because it seems to imply something to have a picture of someone the prosecutor compared him to. If you want to take this to FAC, there may be some bits of POV to address, such as having "harassment" in a section header. Gimmetrow 00:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate Illustrations

The inclusion of the photo of Bob Murphy, in the absence of a photo of Jim Bell himself, is misleading to the casual reader, scanning the page, who is likely to think the photo represents Jim Bell. Bob Murphy's photo is also on his page, and I think including it here is downright spammy: Policy says "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significant relative to the article's topic", but Bob Murphy's picture is neither. Aminorex (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have shown on User talk:Aminorex and User talk:Skomorokh, this argument is without merit. The relevant section mentions Murphy in more than a passing fashion thus justifying beyond reasonable doubt the image's inclusion, no superior alternatives to the image have been offered, and the accusation of spam is downright bizarre. As for readers mistaking Murphy for Bell, I think given the caption this is an insult to the intelligence of the reader. Skomorokh 22:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

скоморохъ has reverted edits by multiple contributors which remove the Murphy photo. It is my contention that even the mention of Murphy on the Jim Bell page is of very little value, because his critique of AP is not original, but merely a restatement of Kay's practical critique from an anarcho-capitalist ideological position. That's why I think it tastes spammy. I'm hoping that additional persons will voice their opinion here, to clarify a consensus. Aminorex (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You admit that the image is of value. No images is of no value. By your reasoning, including the image adds value to the article. Clearly, if your desire is to add more value to the article, your focus ought to be on sourcing superior images. The Kay argument is a red herring; if you can produce a reliable source that confirms what you say, we should by all means add the information to the article, but in the article's current state, it has no bearing. Regards, Skomorokh 22:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Negative value is also possible. Spam has negative value.Aminorex (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop throwing that word around. Not only is it discourteous, but directly contradicting our policy: "There are two types of wikispam. These are advertisements masquerading as articles and external link spamming." Skomorokh 23:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Since I've been accused of 'drive-by removal's and edit-warring, I'm adding my opinion to this debate.

As my edit probably made clear, I agree with Aminorex that the picture should not be included. I don't know about spamming, but I think it's a clear choice based on purely editorial grounds.

1. It is misleading. When I came to read about Bell, I only barely noticed that the picture wasn't of him when I became curious about the long caption. I could easily've gone away thinking Bell was this balding white man.
2. It adds no value. OK. So we now know what one, minor, Johnny-come-lately critic (whose criticisms may not even be original) of assassination markets looks like. Wonderful. How about a picture of Bell, or of the judge who imprisoned him, or of the two fellows who tried to start assassination markets, or of a market itself, or of... there must be dozens of pictures more relevant if you'd look.
3. To expand on this point: Murphy has two lines. These two lines are poorly written - not to say repetitious of other articles, and could easily be turned into one line. There are many one-liners in this article, and quite a few of those have articles with pictures. MIT, Wired, the IRS, email, Kaczynski and McVeigh, etc. Should we copy over all of those? I don't think so.

--Gwern (contribs) 18:17 5 April 2008 (GMT)

Possibility of a fair use image of Bell

I asked here a few days ago about the possibility that copyrighted images of Bell could be used, on the grounds that his imprisonment makes it currently impossible to create free images of him. Skomorokh 22:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that'd really work. You could visit him in prison and take a photo. You could wait and then take a photo. You could persuade a copyright holder to license appropriately. You could hunt down a picture taken by a federal employee in the course of their duties, which would be public domain. There are a lot of still possible ways which means you don't really have that out. (Maybe you'd be within the letter of the policy, but not the spirit.) Just being inaccessible for a set period isn't enough. --Gwern (contribs) 16:37 5 April 2008 (GMT)

Thanks for the reply, I thought as much. Skomorokh 16:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

How about a note that a USN&WR photo of him appears in reference  ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SalineBrain (talk • contribs) 08:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Kay source

I was asked for a reference to Kay's critique: http://packetstormsecurity.org/papers/contest/Richard_Kay.txt Aminorex (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting, but does not seem to meet Misplaced Pages's standards for reliable sources as it appears to be an email/usenet posting. Is the material published anywhere? Skomorokh 22:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I hold that it is superior, by WP's standards, to Bob Murphy's self-published critque. Both are web pages, neither was published in a mainstream or peer-revenued venue. Kay's is at least not self-published. It was not an email or usenet posting. It was a submission to a contest for papers addressing DDOS security topics. It is customary to give priority to the first expression of an idea. It would be better for the text to reference Kay's article than Murphy's, on that ground alone. This would result in no textual reference to Bob Murphy on the Jim Bell page. My conclusion is that the photograph is misplaced. I'm not trying to beat the topic to death, just clarify some of my reasoning. Obviously not all can be recorded, but these are points which seem to have been omitted from the foregoing discussion.Aminorex (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that if it were the case that Murphy's work was little more than a restatement of Kay's, and if Kay's work had been published in a manner acceptable to Wiki standards, there would be no reason to make more than a passing reference to Murphy and thus no real reason to include his image. Neither of those ifs have been shown to be the case unfortunately. The Murphy piece meets WP:V under the criteria for self published sources because his work in the relevant field (Chaos Theory) has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Furthermore, as Murphy was the senior editor of Anti-State.com at the time of publication, we can be reasonably certain that the cited work is in fact written by him and untampered with.

An argument specifying which criteria of WP:RS Kay's work meets has yet to be made. Skomorokh 23:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Status Incarcerated

Instead of "Status Incarcerated", wouldn't it be more accurate to list the scheduled release date (publicly available from the Bureau of Prisons)? Especially since "Status Incarcerated" will be wrong whenever the release occurs, and the conviction date plus the sentence does not calculate the release date, due to various factors? SalineBrain (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Current Climate Change Research

Currently, Jim is working on solutions to climate change. How would this be added per Misplaced Pages's TOS? I have personal letters from Bell, but no citations anywhere on the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.184.248 (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Misplaced Pages as an encyclopaedia is an amateur tertiary source, so can only take its information from professional secondary sources. For more information, you could read Misplaced Pages:Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Regards,  Skomorokh  07:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that on studying many Misplaced Pages articles, I frequently (usually?) see comments and claims that are not citing 'professional secondary sources'. Obviously, there is a double-standard at work. It appears that there are semi-professional 'drive-by-editors' (aka busybodies) who get their jollies tampering with other people's work. My own, initial definition of 'drive-by-editing'? Editing (almost always, quickly removing) edits by others, which are not inherently objectionable, by persons who do not regularly contribute to the specific article in question. Such 'drive-by-editing' rarely, if ever, includes waiting for the consensus of the Wiki community, or (first) posting an objection or question in the 'talk:' section. I suggest that unless a posting is OBVIOUS graffiti or sabotage, it should be allowed for at least as long as is necessary for the group to develop a CONSENSUS as to the merit of the posting. Anyone who takes it upon himself to IMMEDIATELY, and/or REPEATEDLY remove a non-malicious contribution, and not attempt to FIRST bring the issue to the attention of the community to the alleged problem, is a JERK, a busybody, a 'drive-by-editor'. James dalton bell (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Bell has been a victim of a 'persistent vandal'

Since about 48 hours ago, I have repeatedly attempted to upload a paragraph to the article "Jim Bell". It seems to work, but a few hours later the paragraph mysteriously disappears. I call this 'persistent vandalism'. And, it is STILL 'persistent vandalism' even if somebody thinks he can warp Wiki policy to 'justify' it. Wiki policy refers to 'verifiability': Simple! If somebody needs to verify that I, James Dalton Bell, really said something, just give me a phone call at 360-696-4308, and ASK. I am beginning to suspect that Wiki policy is DEFECTIVE in regards to biographies of living people: A person, who is the presumptive EXPERT on his own situation, even if not entirely unbiased, certainly should qualify to enter material about himself. James dalton bell (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The following is the paragraph I have been attempting to enter to the 'jim bell' Misplaced Pages page: Recent Events: Global Warming Solution. In late June 2009, Bell discovered that only the carbon dioxide molecules containing C-13 isotope (1.1% of carbon) or Oxygen-17 (0.038% of oxygen) are responsible for most or all of the longwave infrared absorption. So, removing these isotopes from the fuel and oxygen would eliminate the alleged 'global warming' problem. Cryogenic distillation of methane (main constituent of natural gas) and atmospheric oxygen would remove these isotopes. Conversion of coal to 'producer gas' (carbon monoxide and hydrogen), followed by distillation of the carbon monoxide, would produce a fuel that would not add to the 'greenhouse effect' when burned. In late July 2009, Bell wrote letters to Al Gore, over 40 foreign embassies in Washington DC, and over 30 Congressional committees and government agencies, informing them of this solution. As of late December 2009, Bell had not received any answer to these letters. <end of paragraph to be added> Bell's current comments follow: By deleting this material, and ignoring its contents, some person has demonstrated himself not merely to be hostile and malicious, and not merely traitorous to the entire human race, but potentially traitorous (depending on the validity of the 'global warming' problem) to all life on Earth. I need HELP to publicize this very important discovery. (it is, in fact, only a very tiny tip of the iceberg of a huge number of inventions I have made in the last year.) I urge anyone who is interested in THE SOLUTION, even if he doesn't believe in 'the problem', to contact me IMMEDIATELY at jimdbell@q.com, or by telephone at 360-696-4308. The situation is not merely urgent, it very well could qualify as an EMERGENCY. James dalton bell (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Double Standard in enforcement of "Rules"

I have just noticed an obvious double standard: I have accessed another article, which contains an automated 'warning' that the page does not cite any sourced content. So, what is the date of the warning? 2006! And, it says such content MAY be challenged and removed. (not, 'must be...') Whereas, I posted (on three separate occasions, in 36 hours) paragraphs, in 'Jim Bell', where I am the subject of the article. And golly, in EACH case, the 'offending' material wasn't removed years later, nor months later, nor weeks later, nor days later. Just a few hours. Hmmmmm. Seems a lot like a 'double-standard' to me. It is easy for people to hide behind enforcing 'the rules', in order to justify their malicious actions. Therefore, I accuse the person who removed my postings of an obviously malicious action, done under the pretext of following 'the rules', but in reality being an attempt to cause trouble. In fact, let me suggest that if such a deletion were done NON-maliciously, the text would be 'automatically' (by the person doing the deletion) put into the talk:jim bell site for the consideration of the rest of the community. In other words, the person deleting would be immediately exposing his actions to the view of the entire community, who could then override his action. To fail to do so, and the person who deleted my text THREE TIMES failed to do so, evidences an obvious desire to BOTH conceal my additions, AND to conceal his attempt to conceal my addition. Will such a person end up....EXTINCT? James dalton bell (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read these sections - WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:V and it may help you understand that there are no double standards being applied here, and that BLP policies are cut and dry. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 00:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You, like 'Dodo', are wrong. Notice that 'Dodo' hasn't bothered to EXPLAIN, in detail, his actions. This is quite revealing! He must know that I am a 'new' user: Only on for about two weeks. Logic suggests that he should, carefully, EXPLAIN why he did something like deleting my posts, repeatedly, without even as much as asking the community. After all, why should he be RUDE, as he has been, when he cannot claim that I 'should know' not merely what the rules say, but also the way they are followed. Well, the simple answer may be that he does this kind of thing a lot: He may ORIGINALLY have been respectful, but maybe he's developed a practice of 'drive-by-edits'. He seems to have that reputation! But as tempting as it may be to assert that, I think his actions are far more detailed and specific, and malicious: His pattern of deletion of my posts is to delete ALL ALL ALL of my posts, not merely some fraction that (he would argue) violates some rule. So, the 'rule' (actually, the practice) he seems to be showing is this: "Do not allow James Dalton Bell to post ANYTHING, on any article, and certainly not on 'jim bell'." Will 'Dodo' deny this? So far, he's avoided commenting! 'Dodo' seems to do this by simply finding SOME reason to dislike my post (even just a small part of it, though he doesn't say), and then use this to 'justify' deleting everything. The best explanation, I think, is that somebody has put him up to it, and he wasn't careful enough to cover his tracks. And, a few other non-thinkers back him up. (Is that called 'sock puppetry' or 'meat puppetry'?) James dalton bell (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class Cryptography articles
• Mid-importance Cryptography articles
• GA-Class Computer science articles
• Mid-importance Computer science articles
• WikiProject Computer science articles
• WikiProject Cryptography articles
• GA-Class Philosophy articles
• Low-importance Philosophy articles
• GA-Class philosopher articles
• Low-importance philosopher articles
• Philosophers task force articles
• GA-Class Internet culture articles
• Mid-importance Internet culture articles
• WikiProject Internet culture articles
• GA-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles