I'm beginning to think I should have skipped this, it could become exceedingly addictive. Thanks to you and those on IRC who cleaned up this page. htom OtterSmith03:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
linking to the WP and WS is a dangerous activity, as both have been known to change pages without noting that they've done so.
This really disappoints me, as I've been telling people that the WaPo is now the world's best newspaper, and also the most web-savvy. I know this is off-topic for Wikipedia, but if you have any links about this, I'd love to read them. Thanks, CWC(talk)13:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably not been as definate as that sounds; I have seen, over the last half-dozen years, so many complaints about newspapers changing stories that I now think that all of them are doing it, even if they are not being "caught". htom14:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for that. I'll keep an eye open. (I have discovered a claim about surreptitious update(s) to a WaPo blog, but that's not what worries me.) Cheers from a somewhat relieved CWC(talk)03:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RfAR Notice regarding the Killian Documents dispute
Hi. You have been included as a party in a request for arbitration involving the Killian memos dispute. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc00:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to hear, but I'm going to be off-line for a while, probably Monday evening at the earliest. Real life intrudes. htom05:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: this editI see no reason for the deletions. That they may be obscure to you is not a good reason.). The links were not deleted because they were obscure, the links were deleted because they do not have articles (see WP:MOSDP#Redlinks for more info). Please feel free to re-add a link when (and if) an article is ever written about that subject! Ewlyahoocom23:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comment on the Administrators' noticeboard
??? That was an ignorant, borderline malicious statement. If you can find just one thing factually wrong in that site, feel free to point it out. It is what it is whether you like it or not -- try spinning that in your "ROFLcopter". By the way, I'm in sockpuppet/meatpuppet hunting mode now, and that comment, along with your odd "superscript" nonsense, has just put yourself on the checklist. -BC aka Callmebc15:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Superscripts were invented several centuries before typewriters. I'm not going to look further at your site; it is obviously pushing your POV and you're entirely welcome to it. As far as my being a sockpuppet or meatpuppet or any of the other things you've implied ... get a real life. htom04:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right wingers seem to view reality as being no more than a big ol' liberal conspiracy. And I was thinking you were one LGF'er I didn't have to be that concerned about.... Whatever. -BC aka Callmebc06:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever considered the possibility that their conspiracies are actually nothing but psychological projections of your own reality? htom15:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm....you might have a point there except that: A) I do believe I was referring to the well-documented behavior of right wingers towards logic, science and research as with evolution, global warming, and, yes, I suppose also with more minor things like the Killian documents; B) there has been an awful lot of "discussion" regarding the memos and so far, and correct me if I'm wrong, it's been primarily a battle between confused, unsupported, and demonstrably false nonsense on one side and a plethora (actually more a myriad) of hard, verifiable facts on the other; and C) if one was to go by the extremes people have been going to in avoiding answering any of those simple "Yes or No" questions posed, one could make the case that this indicates an awful lot of insincerity, among other things, on that first side as well.
And I was sincere about not editing things to disparage "CJ". Just think it through -- if I'm right (and I suspect you and some of the others are grudgingly allowing this to be a possibility at least, however loathe you would to ever admit it), who is going to publicly lose face the most? I told a certain blogger one time that he could save some face by blaming part of his "confusion" on the major media for saying that only typewriters were around then. And that's basically true. If you have been following the edit battles, in some ways it's all been just a deconstruction of all the confused myths that ended up going into wide and endless circulation all over, including Wikipedia, because no authoritative news source ever stepped up to the plate to knock that nonsense out where it belongs. For all intents and purposes, they all choked when it was their time to put that infinitely stupid game to rest.
Of course I'm on the "right" side ;) and I fully understand that I might be on the incorrect side as well. It seems to me to be extremely unlikely that Col. Killian had anything to do with the creation of the images (there are no documents) being discussed. Whether they were created by Buckett or Lucy or Rove or the Kerry campaign or the Bush campaign I don't know; we won't settle that question ever (unless someone comes forward and believably confesses.) There may have been, at some time, typewritten orginals created by Killian, but those hypothetical documents were not what was presented to CBS and USAToday. -- htom
But my basic logic at work here is that if you eliminate the possibility that the documents, collectively, could have been forged under any circumstances, then what is left? At that point, it doesn't matter in the slightest about Burkett or whoever. I'm not going to rehash my reasoning and evidence here, but that's, well, the deal. Dispute all you want, but you know I have refuted everything from your side, while on my side I have stuff that nobody has come close to touching with anything remotely factual or logical. It is what it is. -BC aka Callmebc21:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you have not eliminated that possibility. Real documents can be forged (if money, it's called counterfeiting.) At best you raise the potential for there to have been actual documents that the images are somehow derived from. This has always been a possibility, but it is one with an exceedingly low probability. htom15:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did, actually. Even if you grant the forger enough expertise in Photoshop to cunningly so randomly "age" the documents to the point that you can not replicate most at all with a modern word processor [3], as well as make him/her an exceedingly diligent researcher who carefully culled through all the DoD records to gather up convincing content minutia to a detail that exceeded greatly what bloggers and even the media could pick up on (including a reference to the now redacted James Bath, who was suspended exactly one month after Bush [4], you still have a couple of issues: 1) someone so brilliant would very likely have been smart enough to have used some old typewriter like the still easy to find Selectric to create the forgeries; and 2) you still have that Feb. 2nd, 1972, memo [5] with the reference to Bush and Bath having some sort of flight certification issues -- information that could only have been derived by an analysis of Bush's flight logs, but which were not released until AFTER CBS had obtained all the memos. Those flight logs had not been available for over 30 years, and even then, likely only to Bush's superiors in the Air Guard/USAF. The pro-forgery claims may start as a big pile, but item by item, it shrinks down to nothing under close scrutiny. The "they are real" pile starts off a bit smaller, but even after you take out CBS's incompetent, dumbass handling of them, there is still a pile left. Like I said, it is what it is, and you should think instead really long and hard about what this all means, especially in regards to the way the White House dodged answering questions about them, as in the "answer" given to "Stephen, from Colorado Springs, CO"here. I always find it interesting how Dan Bartlett fields the question there, and how he gets mentioned and described in this long interview of Burkett --there seems to be a certain "consistency" in behavior. But, again, whatever.... -BC aka Callmebc21:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of this is easily explained: Carl Rove had it done, to distract both sides from "more real" issues. That, unfortunately, means that Killian didn't write the memos, making them forgeries. The only real question is "who forged"; there is little doubt that someone did. htom22:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, he's already gone - he quit Wikipedia. I know I've been frustrated with Wikipedia in the past, but geez - he quit only after five edits. Equinox137 (talk) 05:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean youre doing what the CIA would want ie trying to cast doubt on if waterboarding is torture then it is demostrable by your actions. (Hypnosadist)18:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, henrik•talk11:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision may be reviewed through the above link. Further to the relevant findings of fact, Waterboarding and all closely-related pages are subject to article probation (full remedy); editors working on Waterboarding, or closely related pages, may be subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, whereby any edits by that editor which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, may result in a block. (full remedy).
Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block length shall increase to one year (full enforcement). Before such restrictions are enacted on an editor, he or she must be issued with a warning containing a link to the decision.
The Waterboarding article's ArbCom proceeding has been ended without resolving the content dispute. Please contribute constructively on the Talk page. I have proposed removing six words from the lead sentence, and I have also suggested mediation. Thank you. Neutral Good (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Request for Mediation has been filed on the Waterboarding article concerning the content dispute in the first six words of the article. You have been named as a party and your participation would be appreciated. I believe this is the best approach to an amicable resolution of the dispute. Please indicate your agreement here. Thank you. Neutral Good (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get ready, because once that movie comes out, the Stop Loss article is going to heat up with people thinking they know all there is to know about the topic. (i.e. more crap about breaking contracts) Equinox137 (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your point, I'm responding here as it is a bit off topic for Talk:ITV
The BBC is a completely different entity to anything else, and there isn't really anything with which you could compare it in the US, though many other European countries have similar things. It is not federal in the way that the US networks are, i.e. it does not have affiliates nor is it comprised of multiple companies. It is a non profit making, publicly owned entity, funded by a mandatory licence fee paid for by anybody who owns a television set. It operates a number of services, both radio and television, that are stylistically unique and differentiated by numbers (e.g. BBC1, BBC2, Radio 1, Radio 2 etc.) Note that these numbers are ways of differentiating and naming the different services and have no relevance to the channel number on which they are broadcast which are very rarely mentioned (those are in the range 21-69 as the UK uses UHF and vary region by region)
The BBC services are all free to view and available nationwide, with the exception of BBC local radio. Unlike the nearest comparison, PBS, it has a very significant share of viewership and listenership. BBC One and BBC Two are available through conventional analogue television and therefore far more watched than BBC Three and BBC Four and the other stations which are available through digital, satellite and cable only, though with the majority of households having at least one of these means, this is changing.
ITV is different, and even more confusing. Independent Television when it was founded in the 1950s was the first broadcast service that was not publicly owned (though it was heavily regulated then and for many decades thereafter) and the term independent referred to this independence from the BBC. It was akin to a US style affiliate network, but there was no one company overly in charge, rather many small companies that had the franchise to a region and both competed and collaborated to form a network with both regional variations in programming and common network shows. Four or five of the 14 regional contractors would, however, make the bulk of the programming and have the de facto control of the network between them, those being the contractors to the largest and most populous (and therefore most profitable) regions. Up until the early 1990s, the regional contractors would be picked by the regulator every few years based on merit. Also, after 1990, large scale deregulation of ITV lead to companies being able to take one another over and hold more than one franchise simultaneously, something that had previously been disallowed. Consequently, over the following ten years or so, multiple mergers and take-overs have lead to one principle company, owning the vast majority of the franchises. This company named itself ITV plc, but it is important to note that ITV plc is a franchise holder and contractor of ITV. That is why there are two separate articles, ITV and ITV plc, as they refer to two different things.
ITV never had a unique identity prior to the mid 1990s, it was referred to on screen and by the viewers by different names in different regions, such as Granada, Yorkshire, Thames and so on. ITV1 is the identity used in all those regions owned by ITV plc. ITV2, ITV3 and ITV4 are strictly speaking distinct from ITV, as they are separate stations wholly owned by ITV plc and in that respect aren't really connected with the original ITV. Like BBC3 and BBC4 they are only available via digital, satellite, cable etc. I told you it was confusing.
However the two broadcasters are certainly not the only networks in the UK anymore. Channel 4 was the third national network, and lies somewhere between the two. It is publicly owned and non profit making, and holds a public service remit, but is independent of the BBC. It also receives no licence fee revenue and relies on adverts like ITV. Before Channel 4 in 1982 there was *just* the BBC and ITV, and only 14 commercial broadcasters (ITV's regional contractors) of any note. Channel 4 didn't make programmes (unlike the BBC) but commissioned independent commercial producers to make them for it. These were both ITV companies and other independent producers.
Up until the 1990s, there were really only four stations, BBC1 and the ITV network producing populist programming, BBC2 and Channel 4 producing, educational, and intellectual programming. Since then, satellite and cable means there are a lot of other networks with significant viewership and in a few years these will have equal coverage to the main four. They include five owned by the large European commercial conglomerate RTL, The Sky channels, owned in part and heavily influenced by Rupert Murdoch, owner of FOX, and a range of other services, including various stations of different names owned by UK company Flextech and many owned by US player Viacom, such as MTV and Paramount. In addition, Channel 4, ITV and the BBC have additional services available on these platforms.
in case you don't have this on your watchlist any more, i have made a comment or two on the talk page, and one change to the article. one of the comments relates to a ? you were asked. Toyokuni3 (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No newbie bitting going on - check the edit history, the categories were restored by an experience editor after I'd already removed them once. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Allemandtando has not understood the edit history, if I assume good faith. I restored the categories with the colon that prevents the category from appearing as an article. McCullough, I suspect inadvertently, removed those colons. Or he just did not realize that actually linking to the categories would be offensive. Allemandtando, if you know you are dealing with an experienced editor -- actually, I'm a relative newcomer, but that's another story -- then I'd think you'd stop to think that maybe he knows what he is doing. When you removed the categories the first time, I researched categories and how they work, and I knew I'd seen categories in draft articles in user space. And so I learned about the colons. Word to the wise: AGF. If you do, you'll be far more open to learning. --Abd (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate and value your attention to the page. Let me explain a little more the suggestion I gave to McCullough. This article will face rigorous scrutiny when it returns to article space, scrutiny that would demolish, were it applied outside of editorial consensus, much text in many articles in the field.
There are two issues: notability and content of the article, and they are really independent. The mKR web site cannot be used to establish notability, period. But once we have established, if we can, that mKR is a notable programming language, we can then use the mKR web site for certain kinds of information about mKR, just as with any other company or official web site for anything, and guidelines specifically allow "self-published" material to be used for this kind of application.
I expect every statement in the article to be challenged if it isn't sourced. So the mKR web site is a default source, and only, in fact, for what is not controversial. I will not go over the gory details, the various possibilities, but basically, the official web site can say whatever McCullough chooses to say (as long as he does not impeach his site with nonsense or extravagant claims or other problematic material -- which I haven't seen yet.) It then becomes a source for facts about mKR and may be considered as such, just as the web sites of the inventors of other computer languages are RS for certain facts. But where he makes a controversial statement, the usage of the site with respect to that would be limited to sourcing a controversial assertion, attributed as such and balanced.
Thus, for certain possible text, including some of what is currently on the page, McCullough has a remarkable freedom to make a statement about the program on the web site, which then can be sourced and usable on the page here. I can imagine some editors getting bent out of shape over this, but they have confused COI with expert opinion, and McCullough is the world's foremost expert on mKR, which makes him notable if mKR is notable, and thus self-published material is usable. Consider the implications, this could open up a whole new world of possible article verification, one which was always traditionally used in encyclopedias but which Wikipedia has largely been unable to access, because we always thought of experts as editors, and thus with a conflict of interest. But McCullough as the expert can do what all experts do, opine in the fora to which they have access. For controversial claims, without attribution, we'd want to see independent publication in edited media. But for what isn't really controversial, but merely information, he can, in fact, be the source. There, where his identity is clearly verifiable and not in doubt. Not as an editor here. The two issues are totally independent.
Thus, perhaps, you might see why I have considered this minor language (regardless of its ultimate importance, it is clearly, currently, minor) as of importance. Call it a test case. The notability issue is not going to be resolved by any manipulation of the mKR web site by McCullough. But there is, in fact, a route to doing something similar with notability, involving other experts. And I'll leave that to the imagination for the moment. Thanks again for your attention. --Abd (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I understand. I agree that this is a minor language, perhaps only the first of several steps that need to be taken in a sequence towards what is still a fuzzy goal in real computer science (rather than the given that it is in science fiction.) (I expect, in fact, that even well-sourced statements will be challenged, at least initially.) Thanks for the note. htom (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We will do our best, and if the community decides it isn't good enough, that's the way the cookie crumbles. I simply intend to see what I can do to help make it the best shot, and getting out from under the thumb of every nit-picker was an important step toward that. We will still have to comply with what the community requires, or it will delete it again. It's possible that we may need to cut back from the "best" article, but let's get the best article first and then see. Does it effectively and accurately explain mKR? That is the first goal. Used to be this was how articles were written! I predict, Flagged Revisions, or Verified Versions, whatever it's being called now, is going to change the way the community deals with non-notable articles, and sourcing, for the better. --Abd (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And at that, I'm totally lost. (goes off to search on flagged revisions and verified versions), while doing baking.) htom (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal discussion moved from AfD discussion so as not to confuse the issues and comments
Ditto. And as for the skidmarks, f*k 'em. Warriors aren't worried by assholes, much. They've learned what really matters, & I'm betting you know. (Make you wonder if you defended his freedom to be a dickhead, tho, doesn't it?) Semper Fi. And to borrow a phrase, "Live large." TREKphilerhit me ♠ 08:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess stupidity runs in the family. ;D (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) Good to hear the fools don't get to you. I've always thought the guys who stand up deserve better than they've gotten. (I don't speak from envy; I couldn't pass the physical, but I've been a buff since I read Run Silent, Run Deep in about Grade 6.) Canadians are especially bad at giving recognition... So bad it embarrasses me. Hope you have a good, long life, & if nobody ever gives you credit, know there are a few who appreciate it. Ciao. TREKphilerhit me ♠ 01:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Nimitz said it best. "Uncommon valor was a common virtue." You may not get chances to prove it much, but that's part of the Green Machine's DNA. And if Gerry Carroll (former Jarhead & a damn good writer; grab copies of North SAR & Ghostrider One if you doubt it) is any indication, the Corps is still turning out good ones; he did, IIRC, 100+ rescues (helo jock)... You got nothing to prove, coming from that crowd (& if I left the impression proof was needed, let me absolutely deny & retract). I just wanted to say, there are some of us get it & are grateful. I get to say I disagree with how RAF Bomber Command behaved in WW2 precisely because the guys in it risked, & often lost, their lives, because guys like Dudley W. Morton & Howard W. Gilmore & John P. Cromwell died defending my freedoms (or maybe yours, in their cases), & because thousands of dogfaces got killed in places only their buddies remember the names of. Yeah, I know it cost. Maybe someday we'll figure out a way to avoid it.... Meantime, I am glad there are guys willing to go. And I'm even more glad when they get to come back. TREKphilerhit me ♠ 06:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As seen here, adding bold to another user's comment is considered inappropriate. In doing so, you are adding an emphasis that I did not intend, and I have stated on numerous occasions that I find the bolding of text s emphasis to be equivalent to shouting during a panel discussion, not unlike banging one's shoe on the lectern. - Arcayne(cast a spell)17:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not insult other editors in this fashion:
If some folk in certain the British Isles think they are separate, then by all means, let's go with what that oddwater, small group wants to think.
I am utterly baffled as to why you would think I was talking about you. I almost certainly wasn't addressing you, though I was addressing the group you discussed. Maybe take a step back and a deep breath, please. No one is insulting you. - Arcayne(cast a spell)17:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seemed, to me, to be addressing all of us who were opposed to your merger. Do you know a different meaning for "oddwater" other than "urine"? htom (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HAHAHAHAHA! I was completely unaware of that definition of such. Could I trouble you to cite that? I was using the term as a loose synonym for a 'backwater'(1) type area where people still complain about Maggie's involvment with the Colonials. Allow me to reiterate: stop being so defensive; we are disagreeing in a discussion, I am not suggesting you are some form of feltch monkey or whatnot. No one was talking about you. Or David. Or any other editor that I am aware of. Please, please, please take a very deep breath and relax. Assume more than an appearance of good faith, please. - Arcayne(cast a spell)18:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fall of 1966, men's dorms at Michigan State University; some medical experiment needed thousands of gallons of male human urine, which was collected in 25 gallon carboys placed in the men's restrooms. "Oddwater" was one of the terms used by the residents for the contents of the "piss pots" and "urine urns". Not greywater, blackwater, or whitewater, but #1 water, hence oddwater (perhaps with a flavor of "Odd Job", the Goldfinger henchman.)
It is not usually conducive to a discussion to tell people to stop being defensive.
You were talking about us, from all appearances, as we were the ones in the conversation. If you go about handing out random insults, don't be surprised if some object to being hit.
I've assumed a lot of good faith. You used a term offensive to me, and I called you on it. You corrected other errors, but not that. You may well not have known the usage I objected to, but couldn't be bothered to elaborate on your invention until you were called on it. Sorry, there's prior art.
So, you take offense using as your defense a 47 year-old reference to an obscure Land-of-the-Hand study? Really? Come on, that's a stretch even for Dennis Miller. If you are unable to recognize the obscurity of your reference (and source of your defensiveness), then I am not sure what I can say to alleviate what could politely be called a 'wild misinterpretation' and less-politely called paranoiac.
You and I apparently differ on what's conducive to a conversation. I tend to think it partly consists of not making a fairly unique assumption based upon a presentiment of conflict. Your mileage may vary. I do find it odd that you got offended at a blended word but took no issue with 'feltch monkey'. Oh well.
Again - and I am not sure why I have to repeat myself to someone who is, by all appearances - a rational human being with more than three brain cells firing: I was not talking about you. You may choose to believe this or not; I refuse to waste time arguing about it in an article/ Maybe focus your attention on the actual subject matter there, okey-doke? No one is out to get you. Clearly, applying an abscure reference and making all an attack on you is something of a bad faith assumption of my intent, my friend.- Arcayne(cast a spell)19:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I referenced Pro-Lok is because they were the first to come out of a CADOJ approved gun lock. I believe this is very relevant information for this topic. I also found a picture of the lock so I figured this would be a good thing to show. Please explain to me why this does not help the page.Jweinraub42986 (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote that the Tea Party movement started back in January. Are you sure? I mean, people may have been upset and even protesting, but didn't the name "Tea Party" basically start after Santelli's rant? Mahalo. --Ali'i13:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.bostontea.us/ among others. Scroll down, look at the dates. There's an argument that it started back in December or November, even before the election, but it was going before Santelli finally caught the media's attention. htom (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering, did you look on the talkpage? There is a discussion there and what you have relaced is uncited and incorrect, please have alook on the talkpage and I suggest you reverse your revert, the new details from the Daily Mail citation are to replace the previous details. Regards Off2riorob (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly referenced. [8] The court papers list the accusations made, which are now in the article where they belong. I agree with OtterSmith readding information which shouldn't have been removed to begin with. DreamFocus17:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you have any interest in helping improve the List of bow tie wearers to nominate it for featured list status? I don't have any experience with the process but I think this list would be a great addition, and you have already labored mightily on its behalf.--~TPW22:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interested, yes. Knowledgeable, no. :( But I'll look in. Sorry to be so ... the cave of real life is very deep at times. htom (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on your comment "I think of Cornell method as being a baker's term for adding protein to breads" at Talk:Cornell Notes#Requested move, sounds like a good page to write if you know something about it. Here's a good currently-available (amazon, and google-books excerpts) ref for that meaning:
I can't find an exact ref for the original pub. Googling finds a bunch of secondary-refs for this type of enriched bread. DMacks (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tempting me into wikidragonish behavior? Ok, it will take a while. I mostly use their recipes sometimes, as a home baker, and have never actually written an article here before. I'll write something up in a sandbox page and ask you to look at it when I think it's presentable, ok? htom (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the note about why James Bond shouldn't be on that list. Doing that was a great idea! (Hope it works.) --Orlady (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was fun to meet you yesterday at the meet-up in Minneapolis. I used to have some interaction with the futurists in town, so I think we probably have some mutual acquaintances. Sourcing articles is a chronic problem on Wikipedia, so I try to share source lists with other wikipedians to help source the most controversial articles I edit. I'd be glad to see you surfing by the articles I edit any time with your thoughts. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments at WP:Patriot Guard Riders. I told my husband: "a Marine winked at me today." He said: "No comment." He's a retired AF Chief Master Sergeant. I also served in the AF. Our combined military and Federal Civil Service is 62 years of very proud service. If you have time and the inclination, please see my response at the PGR article and also the comments at my Talk Page. I spent waaay too much time yesterday at The Minnesota Futurists. It's how I have been thinking for about 60 years. Now, I smell bread. Thank you for your service to our country, Proud Marine! Welcome home! I know what this means and it comes from my heart: Semper Fi! With Utmost Respect, Tiyang (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.
We invite the Minnesota Wikipedia community and local historians to edit entries in Wikipedia on Minneapolis history. Please help us increase the depth of information on Minneapolis history topics by utilizing materials in the Minneapolis Collection. Find your own Minneapolis History topics to edit or work from a list developed by Special Collections Librarians.
{ { talkback|Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming|One of the rudest exchanges I've seen on Wikipedia|ts=08:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)} }
Please consider the response before making accusations of incivility in the future. Please also read WP:AGF. ISTB351 (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned on the Slide Rule talk page that your were looking for a particular Postscript / PDF paper slide rule -- I think the one you were referring to is at http://leewm.freeshell.org/origami/ There are a couple of them toward the middle of the page, an original from Andy Kinsman, and a modified one. Plus a business card slide rule too.
Also, I posted some of my own on the ISRG list on Yahoo Groups. I think you need to be a list member to see the files section though. If you aren't a member, let me know and I'll put the latest of my PS / PDF slide rule code on my Google Code page. If you are looking for specific scale patterns, I've been working on making generated PDF replicas of various designs (such as K&E 4081, Pickett 1010, etc), along with some circular ones (Jeppesen CR-3, by special request). Let me know, and I can usually turn around a custom design in a day or so (depending on my free time). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekp7 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The policy governing the use of copyrighted materials under fair use is Wikipedia:Non-free content - the particular point is section 9. under policy
9 Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)
As a blatant copyright violation, the offending material should be speedily deleted per The speedy deletion policy, criterion G12. Sorry if it comes off as rude, eh, but the point of all this is to build something that's as freely reusable as possible (and cover our butts, I believe.) WilyD19:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think of it as a blatant quotation, with great care taken to preserve the typesetting, not a blatant copyright violation. Whether it's a copyright violation was supposed to be discussed, I thought. Ah well.
Never becomes exemptions ... Text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth ... Note, too, CAT:ORFU -- Note that some of these images were automatically marked as orphaned because there was no reference from a main space article, and there may be good reasons why these should not be deleted anyway. For instance, if an editor is actively working on an article in a user-space subpage, it would be unhelpful to delete the images before the article is finished. ...
Reading "images" as "quotation" and "article is finished" as "discussion of Santa Claus has ended", unhelpful, indeed. I suppose I could point to the deleted page, which is about a page and a half of almost four hundred, that doesn't even have a spoiler (not that we worry about that!)
There are (or were) references to that page from mainspace, in the Santa Claus talk discussions. Probably archived, it's not the season for Santa uproar yet.
I suppose I could write to Sir Pratchett and ask for permission but really, I think he has enough on his plate already. And the on-going squabble that would create with other editors, and other requests it might generate ... not worth it. I sometimes wonder if Wikipedia is worth it. htom (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)
To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here
This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!
View the full newsletter
Background
Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way.
Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process.
An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here.
Progress so far
Stage one of the dispute resolution noticeboard request form. Here, participants fill out a request through a form, instead of through wikitext, making it easier for them to use, but also imposing word restrictions so volunteers can review the dispute in a timely manner.
Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created.
As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May)
Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes.
Proposed changes
Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement:
1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum.
Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN.
Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum.
Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum.
Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise.
Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired?
This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute.
It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent.
If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors).
The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?".
Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired.
Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline.
Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time.
3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.
Hennepin County Library's Special Collections is hosting a Minneapolis history editathon on November 3. Help increase the depth of information on Minneapolis history topics by using materials in the Minneapolis Collection. Find your own topics to edit or work from a list developed by Special Collections librarians.
There will also be an intro for people new to Wikipedia, and tours of Special Collections.
Where: Minneapolis Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis
Special Collections (4th floor) When: 10am-4:30pm, Saturday, November 3, 2012
To kick-off monthly meetups in the Twin Cities, two events will be held in Special Collections at Minneapolis Central Library this summer. These are mostly planned as opportunities for Wikipedians to discuss editing, but all are welcome!
Special Collections contains many valuable historical resources, including the Minneapolis Collection, consisting of files on hundreds of topics related to Minneapolis from neighborhoods to politicians (it's best to call or email in advance to request materials). Free wifi and several public computers are available.
Place: Minneapolis Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis
Special Collections (4th floor) Dates: Saturday, June 1
Saturday, July 6 Time: 12:30pm–2:30pm+
This invitation was sent to users who were interested in past events. If you don't want to receive future invitations, you can remove your name from the invite list.
My mother recently passed away, and I'm off to deal with closing my parents' home, sorting and distributing things, moving my father to an Alzheimer's care facility. I may look in but won't be reading any walls of text. htom (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Slide rule may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
scarce resource in the 1950s, became more widely available to technical workers during the 1960s. (See [[History_of_computing_hardware_%281960s%E2%80%93present%29]]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Santa Claus".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I had a very nice copy, with Death even speaking in small caps. I suppose someone could recover that. A discussion of that discussion would be wonderful for next year's Santa disputes. htom (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, OtterSmith. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
You are invited to attend an Art+Feminism edit-a-thon at Minneapolis Institute of Art which will be held on Saturday, October 24, 2015. This editing event is dedicated to improving and increasing the presence of cultural, historic, and artistic information on Wikipedia pertaining to women artists.
Hello OtterSmith! You are invited to attend an edit-a-thon at the Loft Literary Center which will be held on Thursday, February 11, 2016. This editing event is dedicated to improving and increasing the presence of cultural, historic, and artistic information on Wikipedia pertaining to artists from marginalized communities. Please bring a laptop. Refreshments will be provided.
Hello, OtterSmith. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Slide rule may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. felt_friend 01:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
