User talk:Geo.plrd/Archives2006-2

AMA Roll Call

There is currently an AMA Roll Call going on. Please visit the page and sign your name to indicate whether or not you're still active. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 18:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix schemes

You are the mediator in the dispute at [1] and since i'm somewhat new to wikipedia and this whole mediation process, i'm not entirely sure what we are trying to accomplish over there. The discussion has been going south for over 2 weeks now, with no resolution in site. The person requesting the mediation has a vested interest in steering the article to his benefit (profitability), and the fact he insists on taking peoples valuable time in this process worries me because the others involved right now are losing interest in dealing with him, therefore, his version of the article might end up being gospel on your site and continue to defraud people .... whats the deal here? How do we really resolve this? Did I contact you the right way (i certainly hope so) --Jokach 23:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For once I agree with Jokach - sortof. It appears as though mediation through writing differing versions of articles is not working - not least of which because other parties are unable to reach compromises. There is a long history of uncivil behaviour connected with this article, and so it appears that no solution is in sight.

What is the way forward with this article?

Cybertrax 01:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there. I admit I can't follow the mediation case page as it's filled with quite a lot of discussion, but I have left a completely new compromise offer on Talk:Matrix Scheme. Tell me what you think :) Cowman109^Talk 01:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banu Nadir

Do you intend to do anything more in the mediation on Banu Nadir? Asking all the other parties about whether they agree to mediation (as they apparently didn't understand your instructions) would be good. If they don't agree to mediation, then we need to move on. They have had plenty of time to agree but I want to give them another chance. Please ask them directly on their user pages. Thank you. Publicola 01:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever actually ask any of them? I can't see anything on their talk pages. Publicola 08:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libya

Hi,

I've recently added Libya to the list of featured article candidates. Overall the candidature is going well with many of the objections now sorted out. The final concrete objection is with the article's prose. I have been the main contributor to the article and have been looking at it for the previous 9 - 10 months. My eyes no longer see it freshly, so I am not a suitable copy-editor!

To meet the final demand of copy editing, I have been advised to ask different people to edit parts of the article.

I would really love to get this article featured as you can probably see from the page's history! I've worked very hard on it and I see this as possibly being the final hurdle.

You can see the prose objections, mostly raised by Sandy, on the candidature page. If you have the time, please choose a section (Politics, Religion, Culture etc.) and ~~copyedit~~, ~~perfect~~, ace it! I would be very grateful with any help I can get.

Thanks a lot,

--Jaw101ie 17:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

Your userpage

Greetings fellow Medcabbie! Sorry if this seems a bit instrusive, but your userpage was kind of a mess and the formatting was a bit messed up, so I fixed some stuff. It still looks kinda messy, but I hope that helps. Feel free to revert it if you don't like, and if you need any help formatting your userpage, just give me a call. Thanks! --The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake 19:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Research Survey Request

Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 00:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PARC User Interface Research Group

Advocacy request

Heyo, Steve Caruso here. There is a Request for assistance by Justforasecond (talk) over a block dispute. Would you be willing to take their case? If you will, please leave a note and sign under the entry on WP:AMARQ and change "(pending)" in the heading to "(open)." When you're finished with the case, set it to "(closed)". If you're not able to take the case, please leave me a message on my talk page so I can continue searching for a willing Advocate. Many thanks! אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 01:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:SCAG

I've deleted Wikipedia:SCAG. Please quit trying to create watchdog agencies for admins and participate in the creation of an encyclopedia. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Operation Watchdog page. We are working on the bad apple rating for administrators. To further that goal we are compiling a list of administrators who misuse their power. is not "collecting statistics". Go write an article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of statistics are you trying to collect? -- Samir धर्म 01:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still a little puzzled. Which specific statistics are you collecting (number of articles? deleted articles? article edits ... those are already collected by the software I think??) -- Samir धर्म 02:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. If this is statistical, I would list in the deletion review the specific statistics that you would like to compile, the reasons why you are compiling them, and how you intend to compile them (specific searches, pages to be reviewed). You have to give specifics:

i.e. I intend to identify the number of cardiology articles that do not have PMID references in order to better the evidence based cardiology content on Wikipedia. This will be achieved by reviewing CAT:Cardiology.
OR I intend to determine the number of specialist administrators in order to see how we can recruit those with a specialist knowledge base to administer content issues on Wikipedia. I will do this by reviewing CAT:Administrators and tallying the specialty skills identified by administrators.

The big problem is that it looks like SCAG is just a vigilante group to hunt out administrators viewed as roguish by SCAG. That's not really fair either, in my opinion -- Samir धर्म 02:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need an advocate and help with mediation

- - Greetings, - - I need an advocate who will walk me through the mediation process. - - I am trying to get the following added to the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Max Tegark is a renown physicist and a PhD profressor of cosmology at MIT. He agrees with my addition. - - I am having problem with an editor by the name of Lethe who follows me around Wikipedia reverting all my edits without commentary. - - I have tried reasoning with him on discussion pages, but he refuses to read what I write. - - Advantages of MWI - - If Hugh Everett's theory was just another interpretation of Quantum Mechanics it would have no followers, especially since it proposes the existence of countless other universes which theoretically can never be observed. Because it is not falsifiable it seemingly violates Popper's criteria for a good scientific theory. The reason it has so many adherents is because it offers numerous advantages over the Copenhagen Interpretation, among which are the following: - - 1. Quantum mechanics becomes a deterministic theory making it more compatible with the theory of relativity and all other physics theory to date which are all deterministic. The Copenhagen Interpretation introduced indeterminacy and randomness into science. Aside from the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics there is no scientific theory that includes indeterminacy or randomness. Einstein particularly objected to this aspect of the Copenhagen Interpretation. In response to it, he said, "God does not play dice with the universe." - - 2. It eliminates the "measurement problem." - - 3. It eliminates Von Neumann's "boundary problem": where to draw the line between the micro world where quantum mechanics applies, and the macro world where it does not. Shortly before his death in 1953, Albert Einstein wrote: "Like the moon has a definite position whether or not we look at the moon, the same must also hold for the atomic objects, as there is no sharp distinction possible between these and macroscopic objects." - - 4. It eliminates the special place for an observer and human consciousness. - - 5. It restores objective reality of the universe between measurements. Shortly before his death, Albert Einstein also wrote: "Observation cannot CREATE an element of reality like a position, there must be something contained in the complete description of physical reality which corresponds to the possibility of observing a position, already before the observation has been actually made." - - 6. The wave-particle duality paradox evaporates. It simply and naturally explains the double-slit experiment. Richard Feynman said, "[the double-slit experiment] has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery." David Deutcsh wrote: ". . . the argument for the many worlds was won with the double-slit experiment." - - 7. Schrodinger's Cat paradox evaporates. - - It seems Einstein's main objections with quantum mechanics had more to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation, than with quantum mechanics itself. While MWI does not quite generate the kinds of worlds necessary to justify the anthropic principle, it is a step on the way to Stephen Hawking's No Boundary Proposal and Max Tegmark's All Universe Hypothesis which do justify the anthropic principle. - - Michael D. Wolok 18:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Committee

Hi, you seem to be a very keen Wikipedian, however you don't want to rush things. I remember you stuck youself on RfA essentially with no edits (I think you had under a hundred at the time, with the current norm for promotion being a minimum of 2000 edits). With respect to the MedCom you need to have a full understanding of all Wikipedias policies and guidelines, and I simply don't think you do, at the moment. That's not to say in a few months time after you've been editing more etc. that you'll not, but currently you simply don't have the experience. I would advise doing as many cases as you can on the MedCab and then once you've got some of those under your belt think about reapplying for the MedCom. If you ever need any help, then please let me know.--Wisd e n17 10:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to cases

Hello there. When you announce that you are mediating a medcab case, it may be best to briefly explain where the issue will be handled. I looked over two cases that you are mediating and in the mediator response section you simply said 'I will be the mediator'. Just so things are clear, it may be good to explain, for example, that 'I am the mediator and I am contacting the requester through e-mail', for example, just so at a glance people can see the progress of mediation. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 15:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed speedy tag

I removed a {{db-nonsense}} tag (placed by you) on Oldham Advertiser; the article does not appear to meet any reasonable definition of "nonsense". The periodical in question may not be notable; but db-nonsense isn't appropriate in this case. --EngineerScotty 21:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Part of the concern is that you have very little experience working with Wikipedia. It takes months and months of reading and watching the community's work, to understand all the guidelines and procedures that we follow around here.

Here are a few specific quibbles:

You have added yourself to a few "participants" lists, without actually being an active member of those groups. This gives me the impression that you are young, and trying to "join" things in order to fit in. (Nothing wrong with joining (or being young!), but you should only list yourself as a member of groups you are actually actively participating in...)

You have yet to master the basics of wikiediting. You have repeatedly left a leading-space before your additions, which is wikicode for a box:

like this.

You might like to bookmark Wikipedia:Quick guide.

Odd edits like this [2] reinforce the idea that you are just beginning here. Which is fine! But trying to become an admin or join important groups like the Mediation Committee, is basically impossible, until you know your way around the 100's of pages of instructional material that are here, and are well known to the other active members of those communities.

Finally, You don't need to copy&paste all your edit summaries to your user page. Anyone can view them (more easily, and with their links intact) at Special:Contributions/Geo.plrd (from the "toolbox" in the lefthand sitenav column). Also, the number-of-edits that people are mentioning above is just a generalization. Editcountitis is dangerous! We value quality over quantity.

I hope all that helps and doesnt overwhelm. Thanks :) -Quiddity 22:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

Do you have any objections to me starting a group to calculate statistics

What are you planning on doing with those statistics, and why do you need a group to do it? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need a group because this would be a massive undertaking, involving quite a few volunteers. The statistics would be used to make a better encyclopedia and would verify official statistics.(Example:Mediation success rate could be used to estimate how many cases go to Arbcom). I will have oversight boards so there will be no grand high poobah. Also I would like to put the past behind us.

I would need to know what purpose the statistics would be used for before I could say whether I would agree. I would also need to know why you feel the need for these statistics. And why you can't just get on with the business of writing articles. I have no interest in maintaining a hostile relationship, but you don't seem to actually be interested in creating an encyclopedia, but instead in creating an adversarial relationship with admins. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statistics (for mediation program) would be used to help the Arbcom predict how many cases they will receive.

Why not wait until the arbcom expresses a need for such information? User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "specialist admin"? User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What experience/training do you have in the collection/calculation/analysis of statistics? -Quiddity 20:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what I do in real life. I have some experience creating statistics.Geo. 20:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Just fyi, it's easier for everyone to follow a thread if we keep it in one place :)

I was asking for specific details. No, I don't know what you do in real life; how would I?

And, as Zoe asked above, "Why not wait until the arbcom [or any group] expresses a need for such information?". The more you explain, the better an understanding we all have of your intentions. ie Do you wish to write a journalistic or scholarly paper, and are doing research? If so, we can possibly point you to more helpful places and people. If you're just making statistics on personal whim, your efforts are going to be less-than productive because of the above mentioned lack of experience around here. Mistaken assumptions and such.

One of the smaller factors of the immediate deletion of those projects, was your applying titles to members of the groups. "Chancellor" "Officer" etc. There are no such hierarchies here. Everything is as equalitarian as possible. Therefore any similar title is just a meaningless (or even misleading) honourific.

It's a lot more rewarding to write/edit articles, and that's the most valuable contribution anyone can make! (seriously :) -Quiddity 20:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you say here,Be Bold. This group will have no honorifics, unless you consider Coordinator and Maintainer a honorific. I am collecting data to determine where more resources are needed. Geo. 21:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That didnt really answer any of the above questions. (please keep replies here. thanks.) -Quiddity 22:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose is to see where Wikipedia needs resources, to ensure that resources go to where they are needed. The specialist project will show where Wikipedia admins specialize in the least, which will show where more focus is needed.Geo. 22:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's just reiterating what you already said. (Is English perhaps your second language? There seems to be some communication misunderstandings..) 3 specific questions below:

What is your education/training in statistical analysis?
How do you hope to cover such an all-encompassing topic when you aren't intimately familiar with the site?
Do you know about all the current programs/projects/groups that are coordinating where resources are needed? eg Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles and Wikipedia:Maintenance and Category:Wikipedia backlog

The thing is, we already know where "more focus is needed". What we need, is more people to do the needed work, not to create new lists! Does that all make sense?

I'll suggest again, that your time would be MUCH more profitably spent, helping us improve articles which you have knowledge in. Maybe Statistics, or something related, if that is your profession.

Thanks. -Quiddity 23:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the answers.

I have a math major.
One of the purposes of a group, aside from the efficiency aspect, would be experienced volunteers.
The projects you are talking about do not show the mediation success rate, or where admins specialize on the least,both of which are important.

And I do edit articles from time to time. Geo. 21:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal concerns

It has come to my attention that Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-19 Banu Nadir and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-18 Wahl, cases you have stated you were mediating, have not yet recieved any contact from you. I have flagged the cases as in need of mediation again because of this. Please remember to keep track of cases you agree to mediate. I would recommend that you focus maybe on one simply case at a time until you get the hang of things, and never, ever, ever be afraid to ask for help or another mediator to tagteam the case. We've been having a discussion in Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal about being more open to other mediator assistance, so I hope you'll try that. Also, please see the updated Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 20:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation case: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-19 Banu Nadir

I'd just like to make sure we're on the same page: When the mediation is finished, we're limited to requesting that Pschemp remove the protection. As none of us are admins or higher in the food chain, and MedCab is completely unoffocial, we have no authority to simply state "we'll have protection removed". Also, I'd already released Pschemp from mediation, so please allow her to continue her regular duties until such time as the case is finished and protection actually needs to be lifted. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 02:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck

Hello. I am just posting to say good luck to you in the upcoming Esperanza elections, and I shall enjoy campaigning against you - you are a worthy opponent, as it were! All the best, and may the best man/woman/thing win! King fish erswift 16:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Wikipedia:Esperanza/So you've joined Esperanza... shows you how to put the green 'e' in your signature. -- Nataly a 03:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bae Yong Joon

Ever since User:Samir (The Scope) unprotected the page, there has been a resurgence of vandalism on this page [3]. However, prior to unprotection, User:Fabshelly has restarted its edits of violating Wikipedia's laws, despite being warned on Talk:Bae Yong Joon about it, and said that I'm vandalisng the page instead. However, his actions are contradicting to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, Wikipedia:NPOV and etc stated on the talk page.

As evidenced, he has violated the laws of Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, a subsection of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which is an official policy, ignorance of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Furthermore, despite being informed, and going against the laws of wikipedia is considered Wikipedia:Vandalism.

Wikipedia's guidelines, especially Official policies, are something which all users must abide with in order to be in wikipedia.

How can we, correct User:Fabshelly's conception of wikipedia? Do we have to resort to banning him from Wikipedia, like User:Paektu? As an anti-vandal, I truly need your guidance, since I'm very poor at dealing such matters. I don't think semi-protecting the article can sufficiently protect against these parties, especially Fabshelly who is a registered user. Anyway, I have posted a defence statement against Fabshelly's allegations against me on Talk:Bae Yong Joon. Mr Tan 12:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's Fabshelly who wanted large scale meditation by starting the page, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-25 Bae Yong Joon, let's see what he has to say before I proceed. Otherwise we all discuss on Talk:Bae Yong Joon in the meantime. Mr Tan 06:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]