Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:17, 24 September 2012

Archive 1,2,3,4, 5

This user has asked for Wikipedians to give him/her feedback at an editor review. You may comment on his/her edits at Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Second Quantization.

Your answer

I answered your question here Pass a Method talk 06:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm looking at it cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Monty Hall problem

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Monty Hall problem. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge template format

You added a merge template to Orgone. Is it your express intention that the discussion of this proposal should take place on neither the source nor target talk pages? __meco (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a three article merge. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Would not the most obvious place to discuss this be the target page rather than one of the source pages? __meco (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I choose the most active talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:User page design center

Hi. It's closed now and I won't argue about the closing rationale. However, I'll answer your question here. In my opinion, it's not really an inactive page anymore than a finished essay is. If none of its content needs updating, than its still actual. The only sub page is the hes to the workshop because I am concerned about the often terribly messy user pages of new user who nevertheless work on maintenance areas and should make an effort to present themselves as being mature enough for the jobs they do on counter-vandalism, NPP, etc. I have all the project's pages on my watchlist and time permitting, I will improve some of the walls of text to make it more user friendly, and to emphasise that user pages are not a MySpace or FaceBook style host, or for minors to post their personal details. In conclusion, I would suggest that the 'Historical' tag would be more appropriate on the project's help page rather than on its main page. What do you think? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a specific issue if you want to remove the historical tag provided that any noticeboard like features are removed since they are all inactive (I've marked the one I could find as historical). It just seems to be largely abandoned and possibly out of date. I would suggest getting the key information and compacting it in less subpages in some way as the project is very expansive (~ 50-60 subpages). I wouldn't mind trying to compact it down myself into something more manageable (basically what Quiddity proposed). For example, redirecting all the subpage talkpages to a single location might help the occasional person to monitor any talk page questions more easily. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Good points all. Time permitting I'll take a look and do some of it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

• From the editor: Signpost expands to Facebook

• WikiProject report: Action! — The Indian Cinema Task Force

• Featured content: Go into the light

• News and notes: Tens of thousands of monuments loved; members of new funding body announced

• Technology report: Future-proofing: HTML5 and IPv6

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Aarghdvaark and Junjunone

I know virtually nothing about the subject matter under discussion, but it seems as though the experts do not accept the ideas Aargh cites. That said, he has remained relatively calm and cool under a barrage of nasty personal attacks from Junjunone. I understand that you may strongly disagree with the language he is attempting to insert, but I really hope you will not let his ideas, crazy as they might be, influence your reading of his posts in the subsequent discussions. I also hope that our disagreement on this matter will not create any bad feelings between the two of us. I greatly respect the work you do here. Sincerely, Ebikeguy (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Most of what you are describing as a barrage of personal attacks are not actually personal attacks. (I never take comments personally, it takes too much effort to remember grudges :D, so don't worry about bad feelings). Asking what to do with problem editors is a legitimate question; whether the editor in question is problematic or not is one thing, but it's not a personal attack to ask where to deal with it. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

MOST Junjunone's discussion edits are not personal attacks, but the one's calling him hopelessly incompetent and questioning his reading comprehension skills ARE personal attacks. It is fine to say that the content Aargh is trying to add is incorrect, but one steps over the line when one starts calling him names. You are absolutely correct in saying that there is nothing wrong with asking how to deal with problem editors, and Junjunone has gone to all the right locations to ask these questions. He will make a great editor soon, and he will be a valuable member of the Misplaced Pages community. However, Aargh does have the right to politely but firmly defend himself, even if the language he is trying to insert is fringe, and this content dispute can be settled in much less disruptive ways than implementing a content ban against a well-intentioned editor who is espousing ideas outside the mainstream. Ebikeguy (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

My Account

Sorry, I am not a Christian Scientist and do not practice the Christian Science faith. I was raised in that church but left it in 1962. I will also dispute that my account is a single-purpose account and that is easily proven. While over the years I've edited (or more properly moderated) quite a bit on the pages related to Christian Science they are certainly not the only thing I have been involved with. Digitalican (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you will agree that 95% of your edits are within that topic or connected to it. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, but that's not by design. Christian Science, as we will agree, is a controversial subject and gets more activity than the other things I take an interest in. This does not make my account a single purpose account. :)

Which other statement? I haven't changed anything of substance, only the (undocumented) assertion that Christian Science has been (generally) classified as a pseudoscience and some really awkward wording. I actually do not disagree with many of your edits and have left them alone. The article is inaccessible due to language and generally bad. That doesn't mean that all your edits are pristine, OK? Digitalican (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I took a quick look, and while Digitalican is correct in saying they've edited some articles that aren't related to Christian Science, IRWolfie- is right in characterizing this as the primary topic of their edits. If they're not an SPA as such, they're quite close to one. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, being a SPA is not necessarily problematic. @Digitalican: it is merely a statement that this is "a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles", it's not an indictment. I suggest reading Misplaced Pages:SPA#Handling_and_advice, the section: "If you wish to continue working as a SPA,...", and read the policies which are pointed to. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

FTR I absolutely agree with your adding facts to the publication page and removing the b******t Popular Culture entries. More of this is good. More of most of your edits is good. Note: I do not think that secondary sources are inherently biased although they are subject to cherry-picking and I will insist on that. Digitalican (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

A consequence of editing neutrally is that there will be some material added that will appear favourable to Christian science from the aspects that have received positive coverage such as the CSM, but some things, particularly those related to pseudoscience, will be less favourable in appearance. The popular culture section was just a coatrack for any old random crap, :) Ideally I would have the article like this: User:IRWolfie-/sandbox3 for a good starting position for me to expand.IRWolfie- (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely have no problem with material unfavorable to Christian Science. As I said, I no longer follow the faith and actually consider it a form of institutionalized denial. I am interested in criticism that follows that line of thought more than the more than the low-hanging fruit of pseudoscience. My argument about pseudoscience is not against its mention but against the notion that Christian Science as pseudoscience is a globally held view to the point that one can say Christian Science _is_ a pseudo-science or a fringe science -- but am more than happy to include that viewpoint. The problem, as I have expressed elsewhere (or several elsewheres) is of trying to prove a negative. One of the problems of Misplaced Pages is that it's difficult to express nuance in argument. I had thought my morning edit had attempted to find a compromise, but clearly not. I haven't read your sandbox yet, but will.

Just to give you some notion of where I come from I have you guys on the one side, and people like Do Go Be Man on the other who criticize Christian Science for not being orthodox (Calvinist) Christianity. That's a whole different kettle of fish (Christianity reference intended.) I am probably more on your side with the IP user as I think his material is way too "Christian Sciency" for public understanding, but I don't like it that I think he's being bullied. (Bully me all you want. At my age and experience I'm immune. :) ) Digitalican (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue that I see is that Christian Science is viewed as pseudoscience due to its views on faith healing/science by the sources, some of the sources even call it a typical religious pseudoscience and several I've come across group it with Scientology. You don't need to prove a negative as that would be original research; instead since the grouping of Christian science as a pseudoscience is so ubiquitous, if the majority of reliable academic secondary sources disagreed with that characterization they would presumably be aware and many would address it. On a separate note, I'm not bullying the IP, his edits were adding synthesis etc. The synthesis wasn't even unambigious, it was quite clear. I have pointed him to the P&G on the talkpage and on his talkpage, so I'm not sure what more I could do to help the IP. But we still can't accept clear synthesis and OR in an article. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Human penis size

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Human penis size. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:MED tag on Orgastic potency talk page

Hi, IRWolfie. I noticed that you added this article within WP:MED's scope. But, if you read this discussion, apparently WP:MED generally doesn't want to list these type of articles within their scope. They stated that they'll help out with these type of articles if they want to, but usually don't want them listed as part of WP:MED. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I presumed it would since it's in wikiproject Alternative Medicine. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Is Fascist

Thanks for helping to make Misplaced Pages a great place for sick fascists. 67.238.152.151 (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I rather think commercially selling "Bark Obama" merchandise on a website is political

Clearly you do not view such merchandise as political. Amazing. Collect (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I or you think, the source doesn't say it. You don't put your own original research into articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

Hello IRWolfie,

I gasped at you when I did read your message on my talk page. How did you extrapolate out of Misplaced Pages:No original research that adding unsourced information to articles is the same as doing "origianal research"? There are lots of articles on Wikpedia without any sources. Also, accusing anybody of doing OR without any proof may constute the violation of WP:NPA. To repeat myself, adding unsourced information to articles is not the same as doing "origianal research".

Second, "I don't think it is inappropriate for another editor to keep an eye", I was not talking about other editors there in general. I was talking about a specific user and a situation of which you know fucking nothing. Or, do you assume of me that my reason why I left that message on admin TParis' talk page was that that I want to resume POV pushing aimed at marginally visited stub-articles? Because if that is the case, it is one another violation of WP:NPA on your part.--Nmate (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)