User talk:Wikiscient/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

The "Times New Roman" mystery

Copying in this text from WP:RD/Archives just to keep track of it:

• Those are interesting links, Nil. It does really seem to be a problem, and it's amazing that it's still a problem if others have already noticed it and talked about it on the internet. From your link to the Philippine Daily Enquirer:

  'I mentioned this to a colleague whose satirical wit is one of the delights of my cloistered life at the John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues. He suggested that it was a code “to activate all the ultra-conservative Catholic sleeper cells waiting for the call to vanquish the liberal infidels.” He explained the code thus: “Times (the end times are near); New Roman (time to establish a New Rome!).”'

  Has anyone actually tried making contact with anyone at vatican.va yet? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I have sent email about this matter to the webmaster of my local Archdiocese. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I have received email back: they're on it now. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 12:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As of 18:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC), still no change at the Vatican.
Google: "Times New Roman" site:vatican.va
WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If you get an answer on what happened WikiDao, can you let me know? I just checked one random link from the Google search and the text on the site was back to the world not ending soon. I'm betting on it being a hack, but if the end is near I'd like some notice so I can get in some extra debauchery. ;) Seriously, this is quite a curious thing, I'd love to know the answer to the mystery if one is ever forthcoming. Franamax (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh. I could have sworn I actually checked a page, not just the Google results. But I guess I didn't! :S Looks good from what I can see... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

As of 19:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC), the Vatican text has changed! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow, cool. I emailed the Vatican press office months ago, in the absence of a better contact address, and received no reply. I didn't even think to look for a more local webmaster. Good work! Gradually, we will make the world work more like Wikipedia, and build a new, fully editable, Jerusalem. 86.163.213.68 (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Lol. :) I think it is very amusing and ironic that Wikipedia got the Vatican to change its online text! That's pretty funny. Thanks for pointing that problem out at the RD, 86! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Vatican is going through a bad Times New Roman moment again

Just see "Times New Roman" site:vatican.va. (It is not only Google's cache). If you still have their email at hand and some free Times New Roman to contact them... Quest09 (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

<Sigh> Yup. I originally emailed them the links provided by User:Nil Einne [1] [2] [3], which they do seem to have changed. I don't know whether they just didn't bother with checking the google results or what, but, yes: problem not (yet) solved!

Anyone else want to try contacting them this time...? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

My Latin is rather rusty, so I'm not the most indicated person to that. Quest09 (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: at the moment it now looks to be a problem only in a couple of documents concerning the "APOSTOLIC JOURNEY OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II TO SARAJEVO (APRIL 12-13, 1997)." WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ganas 3O

Thanks for responding to my request for 3O. I doubt the other editor will participate, CampoftheAmericas or 98.200.187.241 when he doesn't sign in has made half-hearted requests for mediation but has not followed through and now does not communicate at all beyond snarky remarks. I think he has COI issues as he is a member of Ganas and has made some bizarre accusations about who I am and what my intentions are. I understand that he is not the only one with POV complaints about the article, but as I've stated many times, other POV's are welcome if they are backed up by valid references, and I don't mean Facebook! His contributions to NPOV are not relevant or constructive and he appears to have a vendetta against me personally, has made disparaging remarks about me to other Wikipedians, and what he's currently doing amounts to vandalism, I think. I'd appreciate anything you can do to help. Eroberer (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a Mediation Cabal case has very recently been filed on this issue by the other party responded to: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-11-09/Ganas. I will probably bow out of the 3O pending the resolution to that. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the other party wants to participate in dispute resolution. I've responded on the talk page, will wait for input before actually making changes. Eroberer (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference Desk

user:Looie496 has removed one of your responses on the reference desk, as well as the original question: [4]. It is being discussed on the talk page if you'd like to comment. Buddy431 (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like I responded to a confirmed sock of a banned user. The removal is fine by me; thanks for the notification, though! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, he's a "likely sock" (not confirmed): See here. Sorry, just being pedantic. Buddy431 (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh. But Sepulveda Junction appears at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wiki brah. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

android and robot on kim possible

Can you please identify an example of androids and cyborgs on kim possible? this will help me differenciate between the two types of robots. To me, they sound the same, as the voice effect is the same. Here are the characters with the exact same voice effect: Bebes (queen bebe), Robo duff, and the Security Drone (a sich in time). If you need more help about answering my question, drop me a line, thanks. Comet Egypt (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know anything about it. Good luck! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

RD question removed

(In reference to this removal of a question posted by 80.14.156.245).

Thanks so much for your note. I think it's very clear exactly what my question was, and I was not making up the consensus from the "parts of the Internet" I frequent. Here's a reference: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1761776&cid=33324374

That's just one I found in a minute. I've seen many people making the same claim on the same site. I want to know the truth! So, this is a perfectly clear reference-desk question. Please do me the favor of reinstating it as your own submission with your own changes to the phrasing. I think there is a crystal-clear divide between rape-at-the-time (I did not say "yes"), and rape-ex-post-facto ("I would not have said yes"), and it is also clear to me that a lot of people on Slashdot are saying in Sweden the latter is Assange's crime. Is there any truth to that?

Thanks for your help, and for understanding that the question is perfectly clear and perfectly legitimate. 80.14.156.245 (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, let me ask Itsmejudith for comment... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

another example http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1873904&cid=34267372 I can find more if you want!

“ If you're not from Sweden this might be hard to understand, but yes, it's seen as culturally ok to claim rape several days after the fact - even if it was consentual at the time ”

What I want to know is: IS THAT TRUE? And is that the way in which Assange is being charged? 80.14.156.245 (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There are literally dozens of other examples on that site... 80.14.156.245 (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

A very similar question was asked recently; that's now in the RD archives, here. Do the responses there already address some of your question? Would you like instead to post a follow-up in reference to that question at the RD? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I find that question to be totally different, except for the followup, maybe. The crucial response to that followup is "[citation needed] Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)". So, if a citation is needed, my question, which asks if it is even TRUE, is most appropriate! I would like to find a definitive referenced answer regarding the terms under which Assange is being charged. I've just given you two references that CLAIM that Assange had consensual sex with both women, who changed their minds retroactively! I want to know if those claims are true. You can put those references into the original question when you post it. Thanks again for doing this. 80.14.156.245 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This was your original question:

"So, the parts of the Internet I visit are convinced that in Sweden, a woman can retroactively withdraw her consent if she wouldn't have given it if she had known then what she now knew (now that she is withdrawing the consent): specifically, that the women were "played" by Assange, in that they thought that he was with them exclusively, and that when they found out about each other, they realized "Hey! We had both been cheated!" and, that means they had given consent by deception: in other words, that they decided, both of 'em, to retroactively withdraw their consent.

"Now, the real media doesn't really have this angle. So I'd like to know: IS IT TRUE?

"Are Assange's "rape" charges, rape by:

"Holding the woman down while she's screaming, ripping her clothes off, and forcing your penis into her

"or are they "rape" by:

"Having perfectly "consensual" sex with a woman except for the fact that you do not mention that you are sleeping around with others, thereby totalling "invalidating" that consent!

"So, which is it please? Thank you. 80.14.156.245 (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)"

Could I suggest that you perhaps change this to just something like: "Has Julian Assange been charged with a crime in Sweden, and if so what exactly is that crime (under Swedish law)?" You should then feel free to post it to the desk yourself, and if it gets deleted again to open it for discussion at the RD talk page. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be OK. As originally phrased it is totally over the top and offensive. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be using Wikidao's talkpage for this, but I'd like to add that your mental image of a typical rape (as described above) does not actually describe the majority of even rapes that most people would unambiguously consider rape. This may be making it harder for you to understand the situation, or maybe not, I don't know. While most people like to think they would scream and fight back, in practice most freeze in panic or focus on surviving the encounter by not doing anything that might lead the rapist to hurt them further or kill them. Most rapes involve some level of intoxication, where the rapist has intentionally got the victim drunk, or spiked their drink (often with alcohol, so it looks like the victim just got drunk), or taken advantage of their inebriation: this means the victim is often unable to fight back or scream, just as they are unable to consent. A rape also often involves some level of emotional or social cohersion, or a threat of violence, rather than straight out 'ripping her clothes off'. Whether this is what happened in this case, I have no idea, but I'd just like to correct this inaccurate image of a typical rape. 86.161.109.130 (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Now it looks like I was replying to Wikidao's comment, whereas I had indented as a reply to a specific comment by 80.14 :( Date stamps for time order, indenting for conversational-flow order, yes? 86.161.208.185 (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Aye-gads, picky-picky, eh, IP? ;) I was quoting the questioner, it wasn't the original post by the questioner you were responding to, so it broke up my edit. Then it would have looked like I was commenting after your comment in the middle of my comment -- yes, placement and formatting affect flow more than those tiny timestamps at the end... Anyway, what do you have to say further to that business about the Vatican at the top of the page? I haven't checked recently but they may still be loopy with that "Times New Roman" thing, you want a turn at contacting someone about it...? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Then I apologise profusely and prostrate myself before you. Very sorry. I'll see if I can make time to investigate the Vatican thing, although I'm still impressed with the speed of response you got :) 86.161.208.185 (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

All is well

Huzzah!

Just a note, because nobody bothers to mention when people have been quietly making good edits. Every time I've seen one of your comments on the ref desk recently, it's been a calm, informative comment designed to help the desks function better. So, well done :P 86.161.208.185 (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, 86.161.208.185. Every once in awhile I get a bit snappish at the RD, but then we all do I'm sure. The thing is to keep things on an even keel, do the gruntwork, and then not too infrequently something fairly interesting comes along. I've been having a good time there! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help about Catherine Thompson, and rationale of posts about "Cathy"

Thanks for helping me about what to do about finding more on Catherine Thompson, as sune as my connection's security is fixed, i'll try some of that stuff. The reason i did all those posts on the ref desk and other places in the article, is because like i mention on the talk page for the ref desk, i have gotten messages that indirectly state that the author of the message doesn't think that i'm right, or at least that's part of what i understand. I understand she is not totaly notable, but she does deserve mention. Voice acting isn't exactly a piece of cake, i would know. You have to get your lines right, make your voice change to what the director wants, which is not always easy and takes some practice, etc. etc. Anyway, thanks for helping me, you are a good friend. I've coppied this message to the others who have helped me with Catherine Thompson and her work on Biz Kid$. Comet Egypt (talk), the biz kid, 05:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem and, again, good luck. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Forced marriage

No offense, but the anonymous IP's edit was not vandalism (see forced marriage if you don't know what I'm talking about). It clearly specifies in the sources provided that there is a noticeable trend in marriage amidst couples when the "wife" (or soon to be, anyway) is already pregnant in modern Japanese in their 20s, 30s, and even beyond. I've since reverted it. Estheroliver (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The IP did not cite any sources[5], Estheroliver. And the edit made is poorly written and seemingly out of place. "Despite this..." – despite what? How does this edit improve the article? It does not, in my opinion. It just confuses the topic being discussed.

The previous version was fine, the version you have reverted to is not. If it is valid information that is in the sources already cited somewhere "near" the added sentence, perhaps you could work on the style/wording so that it fits in better with the topic it presently seems to interrupt? Thanks, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, better: [6] :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources for ganas

I've been looking for NYTimes or similar to replace the ugly "kinky" in london post (if that's sort of what you're referring to) but I am so exhausted that I can't even perform the menial search for them. Any chance you can put them right in front of me somehow? Is there a single source for both "arranged marriage" and the other thing? Does this require discussion or is it wiki-evident that one can replace lower quality source by NYTimes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Taisha24 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I linked to a good article in New York magazine on your talk page: that's the sort of thing we like to use. And there are lots of New York Times links listed at Ganas#References and notes.

What I am suggesting is that you start with reliable sources and summarize those, rather than proposing additions or changes and then hoping to find some source to support those changes from somewhere someday. And I am also saying: newspapers are good, blogs are not-so-good, "tabloids" are better than blogs but worse than your venerable establishment rags like the NYT. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, generally speaking, if you have a reliably-sourced and properly-cited addition or change to make to an article, you should just go ahead and make it without proposing it for discussion first. See WP:BOLD (and ask if you want help with formatting the citation). If it is controversial or likely to be disputed: yes, always a good idea to discuss the change first. That seems more likely to be the case at the Ganas article than at an average article, but anyone can revert or change your edits to any article at any time, so: by all means edit the article, but don't be too offended if it gets reverted or contested – happens all the time, that's how WP is supposed to work (see also WP:OWN). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

tech stuff

I think I've figured out the User:space (but not how to diff it against the normal page and make sure everything is right. am having more tech problems than usual) have not figured out the watchlist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taisha24 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see you have pasted the entire Ganas article into User:Taisha24/Ganas. That's fine, but you should not ever do that the other way around, ie. post the entire userspace page back into the article.

What is useful about userspace pages is that you can pretty much do whatever you want to pages in your userspace and no one is going to have a problem with it. So, especially for newer editors like yourself, it can be helpful to experiment with editing userspace pages until you get a better feel for what's involved. It is not recommended that you make "test edits" to actual articles. So: play around in your userspace, and then when you have something that is well-formatted, well-referenced, and which you think will improve the actual article, then go ahead and make the change to the article. (You can ask me or anyone else, including Eroberer, to comment on your changes to your version prior to changing the article, if you want, too.)

Again, though, let me make clear that you are of course allowed to make changes to the actual article at any time – but they may not last long if there's any problem with them, espcially at the Ganas article.

Take your time -- it may take a while to get the hang of things. But the way to learn is by doing, so by all means keep going! :)

(Also as mentioned on your talkpage WP:Watchlist should help with your question about how to use that).

WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I read your message just after editing your own comment a little! I don't think I made any spelling or grammar corrections though. In any case, I won't do it again. Taisha24 (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		For going to extra lengths to repeatedly help User:Taisha24 around Wikipedia and for keeping your cool when things got acrimonious. Zachlipton (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Zachlipton. WikiDao ☯ 17:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Megleno-Romanians

		The Third Opinion Award
		Thank you for your 3rd opinion in the Megleno-Romanians dispute. Very thoughtful. — Codrin.B (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Codrinb. WikiDao ☯ 04:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

reply

I'm not interested in discussing it here. My invitation to put it aside is genuine and my interest in any on-WP pre-3O involvement is legitimate. Taisha24 (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Okey-doke. See here. WikiDao ☯ 04:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Ganas mediation

I suspect Schneck is another former Ganas resident with COI similar to Taisha24 that she has contacted for support, as she admits they are acquainted and she has several times wished for participation from Ganas people. I'm losing my patience with her. Please go ahead and make the mediation request, I have no experience with it. Eroberer (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not feeling too much in need of mediation myself just yet. You might try WP:RFC, though, if you want. Or even file another WP:MEDCAB case. I'm not sure over what issue you would like that mediation at this point, though, Eroberer.

I'm in agreement at this point with others that there should be less about Ganas' pre-history in the article. Not none, but less. I think now that the points raised by others about that have been fairly sound, especially after now having read through a couple more sources. I'm still okay with the Controversy and the Shooting material, though.

Could I ask you to just step back for a moment and consider this? That is often a very useful thing to do in WP disputes, goes the common wisdom. ;) Never mind Taisha etc.; just consider the recent comments by myself and Schneck, and weigh the point being made on its own merits, okay? I really think we're going to be able to work this one out as long as we all try to keep it cool and take our time to think things through. WikiDao ☯ 04:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's an idea: would you object to putting Gordon's history in the Controversy section? Eroberer (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It is something to consider. I'm going to step back from this one until tomorrow, though. I would again encourage you to consider doing the same, okay? Have a nice night; see you tomorrow! :) WikiDao ☯ 04:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry W, I misunderstood the mediation suggestion as yours. Will you look at this article and see if it satisfies the objections of Schneck and Taisha24? Eroberer (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's very similar to the other two sources being discussed in this context, and only quotes Gordon in 1972 as saying that she does not personally "believe in degrees". I just do not think this whole issue -- Gordon's pre-Ganas history -- deserves more than one summary sentence, maybe two, in the Ganas article today. I think I recall hearing similar sentiments expressed before by dm, ResidentAnt, and now Schneck too (although Schneck seems to be focussing on the "WP:ORIGINAL SYN" thing, whereas I'm standing more on just WP:UNDUE).

Let's take our time with this. Things have gotten very heated lately, in part because Taisha24 is new and unfamiliar with wikiquette and has some very strong feelings about all this. Try not to let that get to you. If it starts to get heated, step back from it. It will all get sorted out in a way that -- just from my sense of you as a WP editor so far -- will be acceptable to you in the end. It may go back and forth for awhile before we get there, but that's just the nature of the game, right? ;) Have a nice day! WikiDao ☯ 13:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be totally happy to replace ResidentA with Franamax - or frankly anyone else - at Ganas page. He's very grating. Eroberer (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're going to run into all types at WP, and all articles are (usually) open to editing by everyone, so you need to be prepared to work with pretty much anyone who may come along. The more the merrier, in my opinion. I haven't worked much with ResidentAnt myself much outside of the Ganas article, but I am certain that s/he is open to reason and is willing to compromise in the best interests of WP if/when necessary. And s/he seems like an entirely competent editor to me, as far as I can tell so far.

But, yeah, I've worked with Franamax before - he's a good guy, whom I hope will have time to keep an eye on things at Ganas too, and even perhaps participate more in the content discussion there.  :)

I should have a chance to look in on the recent changes there myself later this evening -- I see RA has made a number of comments, which for my part I will try to either agree or disagree with solely on the basis of what I think is best for this article in terms of WP's purposes and policies, etc. "Personality" should not have any bearing on that. See you then! WikiDao ☯ 22:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I too made some comments to RA's comments, please see what you can do to salvage the Controversy section, thanks W! Eroberer (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPN thread

I have started a WP:BLPN thread on Ganas. You have been a wonderful voice of moderation. I would welcome your input on the latest round. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the heads-up -- I have to run right now, but will definitely have a look there when I get a chance later this evening. Regards! WikiDao ☯ 22:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it would also be a good idea to inform some of the other editors who've been recently active at that article of the thread there; will do so now... WikiDao ☯ 01:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)