New stuff at the bottom, please. Archive 1 Archive 2

Please see discussion page for above topic. Revmachine21 02:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Avian influenza, please stick the the maunal of style guidlines, not your own. Martin 17:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your style war now, follow the guidlines, see Wikipedia:External links. Martin 17:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused, being new at this. Who can post on Avian Influenza? Are there some restrictions? The external link I have posted has now disappeared on 2 occasions. Now it sems like the whole topic has disappeared. Looks like user WAS 4.250 moved only part of it to an influenza-virus-A topic instead. What is the motivation and idea? Will the topic come back, including my link - or do I have to post another one? Thanks. User:Anernelson

I'm not sure if being "discovered" was beneficial to the natives of the Americas, but I guess thanks. I actually don't know much about H5N1, but I'll lend a hand I feel I have something to contribute. cheers, Nrets 02:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good! You have a real knack for producing relevant policies/guidelines. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! WAS 4.250 18:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my good faith contributions to the DRM article without discussion. my edits removed some POV and removed extraneous information debating the qualities of analog vs. digital media. Please start discussions if you disagree with non-vandalism edits. Ripe 01:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I wrote the following to User:Ripe:

The couple words you changed in the lead might be reasonable. But almost all the other changes you made throughout the article removed important concepts. User:WAS 4.250 was certainly correct to revert the large set of changes you made. On the lead issue narrowly, I'm of mixed feelings. "Policies controlling access" is pretty much accurate, but it's also sort of thick jargon that readers new to the topic will not know. "Limitations" is a bit less precise, but also more accessible to readers. I'm not going to revert your phrase, at least not right away, but I can see editors being suspicous given that your first jump into the page (and almost into WP in general) was a bunch of mostly bad changes. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi was,

although the dialogue article isn't very big, the "Socratic dialogues" and the "socratic method" are in no way equatable terms (imho, of course). (As i'm sure you are well aware,) the "Socratic dialogues" refer to a set of dialogues written by Plato, xenophon, and a few others in which Socrates is the main character; "Socratic method", on the other hand, refers to a method of inquiry often utilized within the socratic dialogues. On wiki articles, the terms are clearly used in different ways to denote two different things. for instance-

• Socrates#Philosophy:

Perhaps his most important contribution to Western thought is his dialectic method of inquiry, known as the Socratic Method or method of elenchos, which he largely applied to the examination of key moral concepts such as the Good and Justice, concepts used constantly without any real definition. It was first described by Plato in the Socratic Dialogues. For this, Socrates is customarily regarded as the father of political philosophy and ethics or moral philosophy, and as a fountainhead of all the main themes in Western philosophy in general.

• Socrates#Prose sources:

The Socratic dialogues are a series of dialogues written by Plato and Xenophon in the form of discussions between Socrates and other persons of his time, or as discussions between Socrates' followers over his concepts. Plato's Phaedo is an example of this latter category. While Plato's Apology is a speech (with Socrates as speaker), it is nonetheless generally counted as one of the Socratic dialogues.

• Plato#Bibliography:

Socrates figures in all of these, and they are considered the most faithful representations of the historical Socrates; hence they are also called the Socratic dialogues. Most of them consist of Socrates discussing a subject, often an ethical one (friendship, piety) with a friend or with someone presumed to be an expert on it. Through a series a series of questions he will show that they don't apparently understand it at all. This period also includes several pieces surrounding the trial and execution of Socrates.

• and at Category:Socratic dialogues:

The main article for this category is Socratic dialogues.

So considering how the terms are used very differently, I think two seperate articles are warranted. Plato's metaphor of the sun, for instance, doesn't just get a section in the Republic or Plato; also, as above, some Socratic dialogues, like the Apology, don't utilize the method at all, so they don't necessarily go hand in hand. As to size, articles have a way of filling themselves out- eg, Socratic method (history) was relegated to being part of Socrates until i unmerged it last april. It can be a stub.

However, if it does get unmerged, it should probably be to Socratic dialogues rather than Socratic Dialogue . . .

Again, i'm sure you're well aware that the two terms don't denote the same thing, and i see from the edit history that that wasn't your argument for merging them. But given that they don't mean the same thing or necessarily refer to the same things or even the same category of thing, I don't really see the advantage to keeping them together.

If you strongly disagree it won't be the end of the world. but again, i just don't really see the advantage in relegating "socratic dialogues" to a section of "socratic method".

thoughts?

thanks for your time!

--Heah ^talk 04:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps we should discuss this on the socratic method talk page? nice sunset pic you've got up, btw. very calming. --Heah ^talk 04:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, i'll get to work on that tomorrow. in the meantime i threw on some cats and whatnot. thanks! --Heah ^talk 05:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aw gee... I like the star polygon! But, Sparkling prose??
Thanks! Vsmith 02:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, and I considered linking it to that article, but I found the H5N1 to be better on giving background information on the bird flu virus, something I imagine many people will find interesting and educational to read. The Global spread of H5N1 reads more like a diary. But that's just me and I see value in including that one, too. Maybe there's a way to include both links by refrasing the ITN sentence? Perhaps include the word "spreads" somewhere and link it to the global spread article? Any sugestion? Shanes 22:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I put out your sugestion with the Global spread of H5N1 article bolded. Shanes 01:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit [1] please have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages):

• Unlike a regular article page, don't wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine where they might find the information. For example:
  • "Dark Star", a song by the Grateful Dead
  • not: "Dark Star", a song by the psychedelic rock band The Grateful Dead

Markus Schmaus 23:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You added the following to Evolution (disambiguation):

• Evolutionary psychology proposes that psychology can be better understood in light of evolution.

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) it should be:

• Evolutionary psychology proposes that psychology can be better understood in light of evolution

Disambiguation pages should point the user as fast as possible to the article he is interested in. Any additional wikilinks are only distracting. Markus Schmaus 02:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me if you can distinuish the colors on the map. Thanks. Hitokirishinji 14:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are the colors distinguishing enough or would you think other colors for than the ones I used for France and Britain would help? I'd be glad to widen the bar. Hitokirishinji 08:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say your guesses were correct. I supposed I should choose colors farther apart in the spectrum, especially the 0-500 color.

The thing with China is that I didn't do anything to it. To me it looks just as grey as everything else. What do you see China as? Hitokirishinji 16:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm this is strange. I checked the color for China using the RGB code and it's the same combination of colors as the rest of the "uncolored" countries. Tell me, do you see Russia and China as the same color? Because both are supposed to be uncolored. I don't quite understand what you mean by "You could put the China "color" on the bar by putting in a section that you do the same "nothing" to it as you did China. Maybe put the bar ON china?" ?

Hey I've updated the map, new colors and added more info, please let me know if the new colors help. Hitokirishinji 15:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Why is Sweden portrayed as a country that posted the cartoons ?. To my extend of knowledge the governement did in fact censor a publishing from a political party called Sverigesdemokraterne, by shutting down their website.

A:You are confusing government behavior with the behavior of newspapers within a country. In the west, newspapers are not controlled by the government. The citizens that own them have the right to publish facts and opinions and speculations. It's called freedom. And if the government does not like it we the people will fire their sorry ass and replace them. Read the American Declaration of Independence for the idea that we the people have the right to institute whatever government we want. WAS 4.250 14:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before you distribute gratuitous insults, you should check your facts. If I was not a physicist, as you seem to believe, it would be difficult to explain why NASA gave me $300,000 for fusion propulsion research and what I am doing down here at the European Southern Observatory as a visiting astronomer, or for that matter how I got all my papers published.

What people like you don't realize is that cosmology is science, not religion. It's observations that count. Attempts to ignore things that invalidate a theory like the Big Bang, or to censor them as Joshua Schroeder and others try to do, has nothing to do with science.--Eric LernerElerner 16:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not distributed "gratuitous insults". I have questioned various things about you. That you find my scepticism to be an insult is no concern of mine. I do believe you are a "physicist". Some are better than others. I have doubts about how good a physicist you are; not whether or not you are one. A friend of yours worked or works at NASA according to your web site. Inside influence? Kickbacks? I don't know. But getting a contract proves little. Not getting it renewed proves at least as much.Being a visiting astronomer and publishing papers is par for the course for both good and bad physicists and does not prove which you are. I do realize "cosmology is science, not religion. It's observations that count." You declare things about me which are not true with remarkable ease - maybe you also do that in the field of physics? As I say, I have my doubts about you. And this intemperate outburst certainly doesn't change my mind. You talk as if no one can honestly disagree with you. WAS 4.250 16:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for digging up the source material for Jimbo's request about divisive templates -- I'd been hoping to find all that info in one place, and now, well, there it is. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 16:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. WAS 4.250 17:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The coding at the bottom of the article looks to be overly-specific and in the wrong place, so I was about to remove it - however I notice that this has already happened and been reverted. I wonder if we might be able to come to an agreement about it? Why is it important that it stays in the article? Thanks Cpc464 04:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you refering to a detailed description of the structure of an RNA molecule that defines part of what the H5N1 is? How is part of the blueprint for the item the article is about wrong to put in the article? Some people come to this article claiming viruses don't even exist. Or that what some one said 100 years ago about the subject is still true. People need to be face to face with the level of detail modern science has on the subject so they don't believe all the nonsense out there. See Antoine Bechamp and Homeopathy and [2]. WAS 4.250 14:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for the kind words... you're right, I haven't done much on improving actual articles I'm afraid. Part of it is that I've been on vacation and don't have access to my journals and books. But more to the point, I've just been trying to get over the jitters-- I don't want to step on any toes. But I'm getting more bold, and I'm confident that over time I can make improvements here for the better.

Thanks. Freddie deBoer 20:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! I think the section of the article about information sources is very limited and quite Americo-centric. I'd think it would be a good idea if we collected the websites and telephone helplines, etc, for as many different countries as we can, or at least as many English-speaking countries as we can. XYaAsehShalomX 14:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I see what you mean. So I changed the section, putting country specific data at the botttom. We currently have US and UK. India, Nigeria, Austrailia, Canada, and New Zealand might deserve an entry. Thanks for helping! WAS 4.250 14:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me what you think so far? XYaAsehShalomX 19:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing a very good job. Congrats! Can I talk you into alphabetizing it? WAS 4.250 20:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I've got it into an alphabetical order...if we add many more countries I might do it in sections for each continent. :) XYaAsehShalomX 21:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A word of caution - this is an encyclopedia - we are pushing the envelope as it is with being a useful source of current pandemic information that is borderline encyclopedic ... And this is the English version of Wikipedia, non English nations' stuff should go in their own Wikipedias. You have done an excellent job. Thank you. But expanding it beyond encyclopedic limits has to be a consideration at some point. If the virus becomes transmissible human to human, the concern of encyclopedic or not goes out the window; but until then, some level of concern is in order (how much concern is warrented is not knowable ... we feel our way forward I guess). WAS 4.250 23:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right, there's a limit to the amount of stuff that's relevant to this article. I just added the official defra helpline for reporting infections, and if we need to add any more I will :) x XYaAsehShalomX 17:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sarfati article is currently undergoing major discussions about how to redo it here: [3]. It may be more productive if you join in there than make various edits to the page right now. JoshuaZ 21:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that quote - I think it captures the intent of the page - and is worded in such a way as to avoid my concerns. Trödel•talk 16:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supplying the link at User talk:Jimbo Wales. What I couldn't find anywhere, is a temporary injunction. According to Auntie Beeb, the Congress IPs have only been blocked for short periods of time. Accordign to the RfC, the IPs had been blocked and unblocked. What seems to have been the latest block, given on February 1st, expired after three hours. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 09:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this is all about ("I have no idea what your problem is" has wrong connotations). Do you know something happened and you are looking for a source? Blocking is done as little as possible. Maybe the evidence is that it is a tempest in a teacup and you are looking for wind damage to the house? WAS 4.250 11:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know from the RfC that Congress staffers have edited wikipedia. Some of these edits were pov (adding praise, removing criticism, or vice versa), some were vandalism (like adding the name of ScottMcClellan to douche) and some were good contributions. I'm interested in this case, because it's the first time such a high profile institution has been so directly linked to wikipedia that it has led to an RfC. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are exactly right. I am also interested. It's just that as near as I can tell, it was mostly teenage or college age volunteers goofing around. A tempest in a teapot. WAS 4.250 11:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Should we discuss here instead of messing up the main page?

The WHO July 2003 report I quoted actually included the same events that you quoted in the earlier Feb 2003 report. In summary, it says:

1) From Dec 2002 to Feb 2003. Some "Pneumonia cases" in Guangdong, China (i.e, the "suspicious" reports you quoted, that the Chinese claimed to be "not connected to the father and son H5N1 case in HK" and was "under control"). The Guangdong cases was identified a few months later to be Sars, NOT H5N1 (July Report)

2) The Feb 2003 (father and son) case: a family developed h5n1 in HK after visiting Fujian, China. It was reported to WHO (July Report). FYI: Fujian and Guangdong are different provinces in China

3) The Guandgong pneumonia later spread to HK, then to the rest of the world, which was then known as Sars. - See "July Report".

4) There is no "discrepancy" between the July and the Feb reports. Both described the father and son case as H5N1, PLEASE READ MORE CAREFULLY.

(BTW. I was in HK at that time. As I remember, there was some disagreement between HK and mainland China regarding the source of the Feb 20003 cases. (HK claimed the victim got it in mainland, mainland claimed that they got it after returning to HK.), but it was reported to WHO by HK nevertheless. (unsigned comment by User:Sorgwa)

Responded to at Talk:Global spread of H5N1. WAS 4.250 19:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She replaced Tony's summary with one that was substantially inaccurate. Tony is, as he himself says, one of her supporters. How is that "bullying"? Guettarda 16:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[4] Huh? Guettarda 16:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please spell out more clearly what you are trying to say? I don't follow your shorthand. Guettarda 16:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel. WAS 4.250 16:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have? I am so confused. I don't see any response there. Guettarda 16:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a very slow computer and an even slower connection. I think it uses mechanical parts as logic gates :) Give me a minute or two not a second or two. WAS 4.250 16:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So both sides are bullying and trying to control the summaries of the other - I don't agree with this assertion at all. I was not trying to control the summaries. If anything, Tony is a member of the "other side". Aa deleted Tony's summary (which, in my opinion, was a fair summary of the dispute) and replaced it with a one-sided summary of her own. I was not trying to present "my side's" summary. I think your characterisation is very unfair. Guettarda 18:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very saddened by your choosing to assume bad faith. Guettarda 18:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thought - on what are you basing your assertion that Aa is entitled to present her own summary? As I understand it, parties in the dispute are not supposed to be presenting summaries - that's for the clerks. As a party to the dispute, Tony is too close to formally present a summary either, which is probably why he only did it on the talk page (in response to Ta Bu's request for one). Nonetheless, he presented a fair summary. If Aa had a problem with it, she could have appealed for another party to present a summary, but I don't see what right she had to present a summary of her own. Guettarda 18:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my point is - Tony's summary does not present the case the way I see it. But there is no reason for me to assume that the case should be presented the way I see it. You seem to be saying that Aa has the right to present a summary of the case the way she sees it. I don't understand why it is "bullying" to try to maintain a balanced presentation. Our side has not attempted to present a summary. I just don't understand what I am doing wrong here. I really don't. I am not trying to fight. I am trying to understand the logic behind your assertion that I did wrong, and why you choose to use such objectional edit summaries and characterisations of the issue.

It seems like you are saying that, in addition to a (fairly) neutral summary, Aa is entitled to a non-neutral summary of her own. Why do you feel that the other side is entitled to two summaries? Why do you feel that "partisan" summaries are required at all? Look at the facts of the case as presented - do you feel that her summary is more accurate than Tony's? A summary is not a place to argue a case, it's a place to lay out both sides' arguments. Do you feel that Aa's summary does that better than Tony's? Do you feel that Aa's summary lays out both sides of the case? If so, please explain it to me. I am not that stupid. Please - I am not trying to fight or to shoult you down - I am just trying to understand the logic upon which you base your position. Thank you. Guettarda 18:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I really have no idea what you are talking about. "Fairness includes paying attention so ganging up doesn't occur"? How does allowing one side to have two summaries prevent gaining up? How does your assertion that one side should have two summaries prevent ganging up? You are facilitating ganging up.
2. I think all fair minded people will agree each side has the right to their own short summary. You disagree If "all fair minded people...agree" can you show me an example? Can you show me in which other cases multiple summaries are used? Your implication that I am not a "fair-minded person" is quite an insult - and is unsupported by the facts, as far as I am aware of them. Instead of slinging insults, why don't you provide some diffs to disprove my assertion that multiple partisan summaries are no used in arbcomm cases?
3. "I am simply astonished that both sides see fit to rewrite the opinions of the other side". What? Tony provided a summary. Agapetos angel re-wrote his summary. "Both sides"? I find your assertion baffling. Guettarda 02:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could at least take a stab at explaining your logic, you know, instead of making glib statements of dismissal. Guettarda 15:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like you far too much to further upset you. WAS 4.250 15:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry to hear about your problem. Perhaps, it would be a good idea to approach an administrator or bureaucrat for help. Additionally, you may have to scan your computer for viruses or malware. Hope to see your problem being solved soon! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are ready to conceed the point, please remove your delete tag ASAP. We can close the item out to save the admins time. Talk page and logs must be updated. If you do not know how, I can do those latter items for you. AWM -- 68.122.118.161 10:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have every confidence that admins will do what is proper when it is proper. I am ready to concede that further involvement on my part is unwise as I, rather than the noteability of the article, have been increasingly a focus. WAS 4.250 10:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WAS, below Durova's comment you noted, "Half the problem would go away if both sides would agree to not edit other people's opinions even if they list your name as agreeing with them when you didn't". I agree, except I think only AA did that. The other half of the problem would have gone away had AA answered two simple questions: do you work for AiG? and are you related to (married to, whatever) Sarfati. Had she simply said yes or no, the issue would have just gone away, basically. A no answer, and nothing else. A yes, and we would have requested that she edit on the talk page only. But, not answering pissed a lot of people off (besides the evil three or four of us named in the RfAr). Oh well, life is full of twists and and turns and ups and downs. Jim62sch 18:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read comments by AA such as "Guettarda, expressing that you disagree with my assessment, that your dissent was implied, after my assessment is appropriate. Editing my post was not. agapetos_angel 04:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)" here without verifying for myself that it was so. My impression was that AA created a list of people she thought agreed with her and some people edited her opinion by deleting their names. Is this inaccurate? WAS 4.250 18:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She put his name and comments on a fake straw poll (which she later stated was not intended to be a straw poll at all, but, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...), and the comments appeared as if Guettarda had put his name in as a "user supporting this statement". Guettarda reveted her post, and ripped into her. Then, I think she put it back, he reverted, etc. I need to do a little research on what happened after the first revert. I'll get back to you. Jim62sch 22:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it was that happened; my interest, at this point, is "Half the problem would go away if both sides would agree to not edit other people's opinions even if they list your name as agreeing with them when you didn't" true or not. I will be greatly disapponted if your investigation reveals further issues. I know fraud is claimed, but I'm hoping whatever happened could have been dealt with by a means other than editing the alledged fraud. I have not seen with my own eyes what is alledged to be fraud and I'm hoping not to get that invoved. WAS 4.250 23:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, read these and decide (probably best to go right to left on the links, it'll make more sense). [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]And the beginning of the mess[15] Jim62sch 23:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reluctantly read them all. I only found two worth further notice. Please comment on [16] and [17]. Thank you. (I think they are congruent with my previous statements.) WAS 4.250 23:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AA continued to insert comments attributed to Guettarda after being told by three of us to stop. That in and of itself violates more Wiki rules than I have time to type. Jim62sch 22:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't "there" when it happened, I have not reviewed every single interaction, I agree I could be wrong in my conclusions; BUT: my perception is of four people acting in accordance to their interpretation of the rules with three people trying to spin a living person wiki biography in a "yeah, but he has no credibility" direction (I agree with the conclusion, but not the spin) and one person trying to spin it in as positive a way as they could; both sides USING the letter of the rules rather than the spirit behind the rules. Unconciously, I'm sure; it never LOOKS like bias to the biased person themself. I believe the solution here is to clarify inherently inconsistent rules rather than treat it like a deliberate act of wrong doing by anybody. Three people versus one feels to the three like they are right and the one is wrong; but feels to the one like being ganged up on by bullies. None of you four seems to be taking the feelings of the others into consideration, but continue insisting the other side can't possibly be behaving in good faith. I disagree and beg all involved to act as if there were good faith and see where it leads. WAS 4.250 10:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making false claims about people is, in my opinion, unacceptable. It has nothing to do with editing other people's posts (though I thought it important to strike my name from the forged straw poll). The issue is that she falsely attributed an opinion to me, apparently for the purpose of creating some sort of controversy between her proposed version and the existing version. I find it unacceptable for someone to post intentionally misleading summaries. Regardless of whether her first "summary" (the forged straw poll) was intentionally false or simply an honest mistake, her re-posting the information showed intent in her falsehood. That is unacceptable. And since she refused to remove the information, I removed the entire post, in order to avoid editing her comment. And I am still await your clarification of your previous comments. Guettarda 23:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda, you are a tremendous asset to Wikipedia. Thank you for helping us make Wikipedia better. I, also, in my small way, am trying to help. False claims are a bad thing. Editing another's opinions, no matter how wrong those opinions are, might not be the best response. Are you able to accept any of this? WAS 4.250 00:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As easy as that, huh? One simply changes the tag from proposed to guideline? No peer review by a board for of reviewers for guidelines or policies? If there is a procedure that I missed, I would appreciate a link :) DanielDemaret 16:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Be Bold, Wikipedia:IAR, Wikipedia:WWIN ? WAS 4.250 16:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was ment as a joke, right? Gerard Foley 17:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. An attempt at communicating in the form of parody. WAS 4.250 17:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was very funny! Gerard Foley 17:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! We tried communicating in every other way that his suggestion turns a no-censorship proposal into a do-censor proposal, in vain. I thought, time to try humor. Glad you liked it. Frankly, I wonder if he is serious or just trolling us. WAS 4.250 17:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps what you are looking for is {{trollWarning}}. Gerard Foley 20:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the guy acting like a troll probably isn't. On the other hand, Jennifer has contributed nothing but generalized venom. I felt like just deleting all her "contributions", but wrote that instead. WAS 4.250 20:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you added a full quote to HeLa, I switched it to "blockquote". Do you have access to the full article for Van Valen, Leigh M. & Maiorana, Virginia C. (1991): HeLa, a new microbial species. Evolutionary Theory 10:71-74.. I always wanted to read the full text. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. So I posted the request at Talk:Evolution. I hope it works out. WAS 4.250 04:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please say if you do or don't disagree with my proposed "simple" changes. Metarhyme 02:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. WAS 4.250 04:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WAS, thanks for the note. I am aware of the limits of wikipedia, and a big defender; and of course wikipedia (along with gutenberg) is the spiritual godparent of LibriVox. in fact, at librivox we have a very similar debate to the one about wikipedia's accuracy, in our discussions about "quality" of recording, and must regularly make the same defenses as wikipedia, as applied to audio (which I can't seem to find right now on our forum, otherwise I would give you the link, for interest). You also might be interested in this long defence of wikipedia I wrote in answer to a librarian who asked us to take wikipedia links off our pages because they are dangerous to her students: http://librivox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1016 ... so this is a little of background about why we got our backs up about the epsidoe: we feel like a sister project to wikipedia and it was, um, difficult to be labeled linkspam & threatened with a blockage.

re: links, though, I understand fully the concerns about not being a link farm, but wikipedia has very specific guidelines about *what* links should be allowed, external_links. see # 3 of "what should be linked to": "An article about a book, a musical score, a webcomic, a web site, or some other media, *should link to the actual book,* musical score, etc. if possible." So in fact Wikipedia policy says EXPLICITLY that gutenberg text should be linked to; and LibriVox recordings of the actual book should, I think, be linked to as well - especially since they are free non-commercial (different story if its amazon selling the book, or audible selling the mp3s). Too me the question of whether the links are good is far far more important than who does the linking, or how, which is where & why we got caught in the mess in the first place. Anyway it seems as if a slightly cumbersome solution has been reached, though not my preferred becuase it is inefficient & head-ache inducing, but it is a solution nonetheless, and if its the best we can do then that's fair game. PS thanks for making the LV page!