User talk:Zenwhat/Archives/2008/January

Chocolate chai

I guess it's too late to add something to the chocolate Thai article about the possibility of mixing it with chocolate chai. Sarsaparilla (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Zenwhat, please respect the advice from RFC, as well as the community decision to merge the data from the article and do not keep on deleting the information that has been agreed on as grounded. Thank you. Pundit|utter 22:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  The purpose to merge was not to keep a separate article on a trivial subject and you persuaded me (for which I am grateful) that Chocolate Thai probably does not deserve a separate entry. In the same time the RFC confirmed that in such a niche subject sources as the questioned magazine have to be used to have any sources at all. You can pursue the issue by asking more people for advise, but for now it seems to me the consensus is that the article does not deserve a separate entry, but a one-liner describing the phenomenon may be useful, and there the sources used - more or less justified. What do you think? take care Pundit|utter 22:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If you agree it was not notable, would you support deleting:

• BC Bud
• White widow (cannabis)
• Northern Lights (strain)

on the same basis? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'd incline towards merging the last two with Cannabis, while I'm not sure about the first one - it is a pretty developed article, although perhaps can be reduced to a couple of sentences and merged as well. Pundit|utter 22:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WBZW

The WBZW article is written no differently than many other articles about radio stations. Please stick to editing articles about things you have some experience with. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

But I don't like spam, employee of the Media/Entertainment industry. Also, please be civil. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And you arrive at the conclusion that the article in question is spam... how? Again, looking at your edit history, you have no experience with editing articles of this nature. Others would appreciate it if you either did some research on the subject or left these articles alone. Trust me, I spend plenty of time with that particular article and have made several eliminations of borderline propogandist or advertisement material. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, PLEASE do some research before you edit articles in territory that you're not familiar with. There was a Policy Pump discussion earlier this month about the listing of current on-air personalities on radio stations that specifically allows the kind of list that I had in this article and you attempted to remove. Thanks.--InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I can archive your talk for you if you want. Marlith ^T/C 02:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just drop a message whenever you want archival. Marlith ^T/C 02:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. --Maniwar (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Austrian school

Hello. First, let me compliment you. Your user-page is really cool, and I especially like your zen wikipedia guide, or whatever it ends up being. It's great. Second, I'm impressed with how productive you've been in a couple weeks (I looked at your contribs). And third, I think your writing is very good, and I can see that you take it seriously. Ultimately, I thought we should get off to a good start since I have a nagging feeling that we will eventually have it out over at the Austrian school article. I'd love to have a civil debate on that sometime - I just wish I had a lot of time right now. Anyway, see you around, and I sincerely hope you keep contributing, as your contribs are very interesting. Tparameter (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I noticed that you said that Milton Friedman was a "good economist". I agree. I'm somewhat of a Thomas Sowell fan as well. Have you read any Sowell? Tparameter (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that was my main beef with what you were doing over there - with the "pseudoscience" and whatnot. Hayek was a moderate Austrian, and I think most would characterize him as well inside the fringe. Given that he was a Nobel Laureate, and given his reputation, I also had a problem with your addition, "their authority as a legitimate school of economics has been questioned". Actually, the source you used I thought was fairly complimentary. As for Sowell, he may be Republican - but, really he's a radical under that characterization. "Conservative" might be more accurate, in terms of the fact that he's a reactionary with regard to any move toward Socialism. And in terms of economics, I highly suggest that you read his books. He is a clear thinker and a good writer. I can't imagine that you won't enjoy them profusely. Tparameter (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Bryan Caplan's criticisms were dead on, however. Any of the Austrians who weren't cranks (like Hayek) became Neoclassical economists, such as Caplan himself. Ironically, I discovered this not too long ago, because though the Austrians object to the mainstream scientific method, their own site contains a large abundance of fairly recent papers where they use it. The Austrian economists that get published in academic journals and hold teaching positions only do so because they are Neoclassical economists who hold Austrian economics as a personal belief. This is sort of the same way that some creationist biologists manage to do the same thing, but they simply don't let it be reflected in their work. If it does, they get fired. I agree with you on Sowell. I haven't particularly made up my mind on a lot of things. There are too many Neoclassical economists denying market failure and too many Keynesians denying government failure. So, I take a centrist position on a lot of things:

• I support universal healthcare, but only if it's a national pool funded by taxes (Hillary Clinton's and John Edwards' healthcare plans of "force everybody to buy health insurance" is horrible)
• I think the FDA should stop approving food and drugs, but it should still continue labeling, the Consumer Product Safety Commission should receive greater funding, and the FTC should go after hucksters like Robert Barefoot and Kevin Trudeau
• I support welfare, but think it should be re-structured to "welfare for work" and simplified (and taking the emphasis away from token groups, abolish "social security" for old people, welfare for minorities, etc..)
• I support anti-trust, but think it shouldn't be strictly enforced.

Those are just a few examples. I'm an American Liberal, but a practical one which places me above the average American Socialist riff-raff. On the other hand, I think that Libertarians' definition of "liberty" is untenable, because it ignores the fact that liberty is valued for the opportunities to make ordinal decisions that it brings, and that strictly negative liberty leads to some pretty absurd conclusions, like Rothbard's claim it should be legal to abandon children and Walter Block's claim that slave-contracts are valid. And then there's Hans Hermann-Hoppe who supports aristocracy. In A Theory of Justice by John Rawls, he specifically argues that the economic liberal position is unjust because it leads to aristocracy. The consistent liberal position argues against the infringement of individual rights for the sake of a greater number and does not see positive liberty as a magic justification for all socialist reforms, but also would object to the "natural aristocracy" which stems from laissez-faire.

-☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff! LOL @ Rothbard and Block comments. But, I have to admit, I like the purists. These are the sorts of statements that define the limit of human thought, which I appreciate. Those guys are like the Yeti or something - almost mythical. C'mon, all my best professors were way out there. Without extremes, substantive paradigm shifts in natural philosophy would never happen. On a pragmatic level, however, I personally end up more in the center, as you apparently do. I do suspect that you are in a bit of denial though. That is, I suspect that you're actually more libertarian that you would like to admit, given your, ahem, open-mindedness with regard to Mary Jane. ;]. It sounds like you're a college student. If so, I suggest that you challenge yourself by getting a math minor. You seem to enjoy analysis. It would be rewarding, guaranteed. You'll meet some interesting people as well. Tparameter (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I avoid the term "Libertarian" for obvious reasons. I think people like Jimbo should, too. Because the term is currently used by two people:

• Radical anarchist nutcases at the Mises Institute and LewRockwell, who are about as anti-liberty as Marxists.
• The Libertarian party, which despite popular misconception, is not "big-L Libertarian." It is, in fact, a small-l libertarian party. I say that because a number of political conservatives (aka the Bible-thumping "Constitutionalists" like Ron Paul) seem to have taken the party over, forcing a vote that removed the support for voluntary taxation in their manifesto and re-worded the language on immigration.

There is CATO, of course, which is genuinely Libertarian, but then I think even they are a bit too radical, since they're all minarchists. Unlike the trash at Mises.org, their reports are insightful. As an example, I pointed out recently on Mises.com how this article on Mises.org invokes Marx's notion of class conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. I think it contributed to the growing anger there that led to me being permanently banned. My last post there involved me quoting John Stuart Mill's On Liberty and telling them how the act of banning me demonstrated their lack of regard for liberty. Whereas I've cited CATO's handbook on immigration in a lot of discussions on it.

To use Wikipedia slang, the term, "Libertarian," was a POV fork of Liberal because economic and social liberals were so opposed, and because of the Industrial Revolution, the Great Depression, and the New Deal, social liberals grew so great in number, that year-after-year, the distinction between "Liberal" and "Socialist" became more blurry. This didn't happen in Europe (which is why I prefer the term "European Liberal" for myself), particularly because the closeness to the Iron Curtain reinforced the Liberal\Socialist distinction. In America, economic liberals reacted by attempting to claim the terms Classical Liberal and Libertarian. Mises made some pretty hubristic predictions (such as that Fascism will go down in history as a great thing for Europe and that the Germans were going to win World War 2) and, towards the end of the 20th century, when it was clear that the Federal Reserve wasn't going to collapse and prices were relatively stable, American economic liberals became more and more radical. You saw the same thing with Marx: Roughly 50 years after he put forth the claim that Capitalism was doomed to failure, his disillusioned followers declared themselves Anarchists and sparked a renewed interest in subversion and violence. I somewhat worry that these "market anarchists," may go the same route, if they continue in the same direction. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hall of fame

I just updated it. Cleaned it up and added lots of new entries.

I hope you like it.

The Transhumanist 09:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

And, if you should have time to look at monetary policy of the USA, it would be appreciated - it's not quite as outrageous as was debt-based nonsense, but could use another set of eyes.--Gregalton (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

This is to inform you that you have been included as a party in a request for Arbitration here ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Civility

You wrote at wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#SPOV_and_civility_in_fringe_articles:

"Being caustic, cynical, sarcastic, and so on, is not by itself uncivil, though it may come across that way."

I'm finding it rather difficult to agree with that.

Wikipedia:Civility: "This page in a nutshell: Participate in a respectful and civil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally."

You continue: " This was noted a while back in my wikiquette alert regarding User:Sceptre."

Can you please refer me specifically to what you're talking about there? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I largely agree with you in theory, however I don't agree in practice.

"Intellectuals are frequently abrasive."

Of course! I have strong abrasive tendencies myself. :-)

However, though people can do what they want on their own time, when posting to Wikipedia, they need to follow WP:CIVIL.

"We shouldn't have an etiquette gestapo"

IMHO we not only shouldn't have , but shouldn't need such a thing, because Wikipedia contributors would stay civil of their own free wills.

"that would violate Wikipedia is not censored."

WP:CENSORED is about article content, not about posts.

"It's just as important that people not be oversensitive nannies as it is that people not be rude."

Well, yes and no. Why be rude? What does it accomplish other than making people unhappy?

I agree that people shouldn't be oversensitive, but I think that rudeness is a greater problem on Wikipedia (and in RL) than oversensitivity is.

I didn't mention this in my first post to you, but to get personal here, you have on your User page that you're a Zen Buddhist and a member of WikiProject:Buddhism, and you've posted an essay "Zen Guide". What does all that that mean to you?

-- "I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech." -- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vaca/index.html

Do you think that being "caustic, cynical, sarcastic, and so on" is encouraged by Right Speech, or discouraged by it?

Of course, there's a time and a place for everything, but I'd say that in general, we should be attempting to avoid speech which is hurtfully caustic, cynical, or sarcastic.

-- Respectfully :-) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I'll stop. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

IAR

One does not have to assume good faith when there's evidence to the contrary. You tried to clarify it one. You were told not to, repeatedly no less. That you suddenly decide to do this after claiming that you're moving to citizendium makes it clear that you're just doing this to be disruptive. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. It is not my intent to revert more than three times. And if I am successful, it would substantially help Wikipedia. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

One does not have to break 3RR to be disruptive. Reverting even once is disruptive, especially since your position has no consensus. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What is my username? — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ack! Pardon me! ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi

No one said editing Wikipedia would be easy! But if you fight your corner you'll break through in the end. The pack soon loses interest and moves on. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Zenwhat. I am thinking that you may want to read up on policies more or get an adopter to help you sort these matters out, as you seem to be misapplying deletion policy, WP:SPA, and other policies. Obviously coming from me, such a statement may seem suspect, but it is inevitable that my attention would be drawn to your activities more than most editors, and that is why you are hearing about it from me as opposed to from some random, unbiased user. Anyway, I have seen some of your work and obviously you have the potential to be a good contributor and even a good policy analyst if you get a more solid grounding in WP's labyrinthine policies; and I didn't want to dissuade you from involvement by filing an RfC or something. But I also think you are going to run into trouble if you continue the type of edits you have been making (e.g. nom'ing certain of my articles for deletion that clearly don't merit deletion). Please forgive me if this message seems condescending; I don't mean it that way. Sarsaparilla (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sarsaparilla, I didn't know Controversies surrounding private highways was already nominated for AfD once.. Let me finish putting the AfD in, then you can criticize me. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao, you ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow. Sarsaparilla (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably true, but I think it's important to be honest about what I do and why. Do you feel the same way? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't you know it's going to be all right? Sarsaparilla (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to say. If 99% of Wikipedia articles don't reflect Libertarian ideology, then Rudy Giuliani might win the Republican ticket instead of Ron Paul. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, yes, that's sarcasm. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Reincarnation in Zen

Do you have any sources regarding that? Is there an "official" stance? Arrow740 (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Albanias page vandalized/vandal user Megistias/PLZ HELP/

Hello Administrators,please try to help in here.

Albanias page and my user rights have been vandalizem by Megistias (talk) by deleting my comments in discussion page of Albania and in Edwin E. Jacques discussion page.As I have stated in the discussion page of the Albania article,Albania s page its been attacked by Greek nationalists so they will claim lands or erase the history of the Albanian people,the burden of proof is on your shoulders.

The page its a mess and so far no one has said or done anything to fix it.I'm disappointed that User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is clearly taking sides in this dispute. Perhaps he's been long enough to these topics to have lost the balance he should have as an administrator?

Wikipedia has lost her value only because of them.Since when Megistias (talk) opened his account in Wikipedia it is been a hell of a edit-warring with him.I stoped in here because I know you can make him reason.I did reported him on the other admin too,I do have faith in you,since you had helped me before. He has not done anything to improve the article,deleting all that impressive amount of source materials put by other users.Edit-warring and revert-warring accomplishes nothing. If he continues to be uncooperative,he needs to be banned,I hope that you will help.Thank you again for your time,I assume a good faith and I hope we can help each other.Thank you.--Taulant23 (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Taulant has "reported" in many admins.....Please keep it here Taulant.him[2]

and me[3] Taulant admins read the history of pages what do you think you will accomplish by lying?Megistias (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)<<<_____number three,abuse after abuse,a typical vandal.--Taulant23 (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Please attempt to discuss changes to WP:IAR on the talk page before unilaterally making changes. While making bold changes once in a while is fine, when you find your changes getting reverted please do not keep trying those changes in subtle variations, and instead seek agreement.

This goes for any page, but a policy page doubly so. Policy reflects a wide acceptance amongst the community and you should confirm that acceptance to any changes you make. At a certain point bold editing becomes disruptive. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 16:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Bolding, italicizing, and\or piping one word isn't "bold." It doesn't even change the meaning of the text. It was simply intended to emphasize the value of the individual editor. And even if it was bold, no particular policy requires that users discuss their edits, since, according to a rough consensus I've come across, WP:BRD is just an essay. If you'd like to make it a policy, a behavior guideline, or how-to page, you could attempt to seek consensus to do that. Even assuming your claims do reflect consensus (which is a claim that has at least some merit), per WP:IAR: No. In any case, you are free to revert my minor edits and I am not likely to contest it, because of the threat of what could be called "digital violence." ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Left a message for you at User talk:Until(1 == 2) --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

On WP:FRINGE

As an arbitrator I only interpret policy and I don't have any role in making it. As an editor I agree with WP:FRINGE. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Chocolate Thai

Please, stop violating the decision made my the community (to merge) and the sources confirmed as valid in the RfC. As an experienced editor you must realize this constitutes an act of vandalism. Just don't do it. If you want to fight the battle to obliterate the information on Chocolate Thai, you're welcome, but do so according to the rules - consensus can be changed only by further discussion and debate. Pundit|utter 14:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

When you warned me about this the first time, I thought you were right. Then, I was in the process of posting this on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and after looking over the LAST AfD discussion, it occurred to me that there was no consensus that the sources you used were legitimate.

You seem to be skewing the word "merge," to mean, "merge and include every unreliable source Pundit used," which clearly did not have consensus.

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chocolate Thai (2nd nomination)...

Those who wanted to keep everything:

• You
• Blanchardb

Those who wanted to outright delete the article:

• TheBilly
• Coccyx Bloccyx
• anetode
• Guest9999
• Me (until I changed my vote)

Those who wanted a merge, but with minimal information kept: (i.e., the non-notable obscure jazz musician, your claim that it actually existed, and was popular in the 90's)

• Me
• LonelyBeacon:

From what I am seeing, there is not a lot of independent sourcework, but there may be enough to include a mention in another

Cat:

We have a list of slang article and this can be added there. Provided there are reliable sources

• Guy:

what can be surced form reliable sources (very little) and redirect

If I am wrong, I suggest you contact the folks on the last part of that list to clarify their statements. According to WP:V, the burden of proof rests on those who are including information.

To quote Jimmy Wales' from that page:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales

Further attempts at intimidation through subtle threats will be ignored. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The RfC decided about credibility of resources, while the AfD decided about a merger. The information is already merged. To delete anything you have to start a discussion on credibility again - so far in the RfC 2 people were confirming my stance, that it is sensible to use it, while 0 supported your view. Spare me the "intimidation" and "threats" talk - I'm just unsuccessfully trying to persuade you to respect the Wiki rules. Pundit|utter 21:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I put forth the AfD because of the unreliable sources. WP:CONSENSUS is global, not localized. You can't say, "X users in Y location said Z, therefore Z is correct." In fact, consensus is temporally global as well, so you can't even say, "Most users said X at point in time Y, therefore X is correct," because consensus can change and if it's irrational, per WP:IAR, it holds no weight.

Consensus is about what everybody thinks overall, throughout all places and times on Wikipedia. Taking into account the RFC, you have two more people that agree with you. Add that to the list of people above: You still don't have a rough consensus. I posted it on the WP:RS noticeboard. Please be patient and wait a few days to see what the people there say and we can decide where to go from there. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote, you're more than welcome to start a discussion on credibility of the sources, but so far the closed RfC's result was unanimously to recognize them. Be so kind and respect this until another decision is made (don't delete information unless you build a consensus for it). Your reasons for AfD are irrelevant, especially when we discuss your current editions of editions of Cannabis. Pundit|utter 21:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC is not arbitration. Per the policy on preserving information, I am not removing information, persay. I am removing unencyclopedic nonsense that's poorly sourced, with no consensus for it to stay up. Please, as I said, be patient and wait for the folks at the WP:RS noticeboard to respond. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You are removing referenced information 3 editors perceive as relevant. If you want to do so, ask others and build consensus. Your zeal in deleting and calling it "unencyclopedic nonsense" is amazing. Pundit|utter 22:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

3 editors != consensus. Far more than 3 editors disagree with you. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sure many editors disagree with me, but so far none agreed with you. Don't you think that building consensus and being constructive could be a nice practice, for a change? Pundit|utter 22:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the case. Why don't you ask them? Their names are all listed above. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. I've done it plenty of times before on here. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not how it works. If you want to delete some information that has been agreed upon as relevant, you should build consensus and, first of all, ask people for their opinion. Hasty actions are never good. Even when you're right, it is always better to ask for comment - it doesn't hurt, really. An experienced editor like you should know it well. Also, even when you're 100% sure you're right, you should not violate 3RR rule. Pundit|utter 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing - to ask for opinion address all editors, not only the ones who voted. After all we want a wide consensus and I am going to respect it, whatever the result is. Pundit|utter 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, neither of us are psychic, so we can only tell what people think based on what they write. Also, this is a side-issue, but you have a number of impressive credentials on your user page. Would you mind if I could verify them informally? I'm not accusing you here, because if I verified them (and I'm a user engaged in a dispute with you here), then people would be more likely to listen to your expert advice. I admit that after the Essjay controversy, I'm a tad bit paranoid about editors making contentious edits while having such substantial credentials in their user page. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to go ahead and verify my credentials informally. It seems only fair. By the way, I hope you won't feel upset or threatened in any way by the fact that I reported a rule violation by you. Please, understand that it is not a move against you in any way, but an attempt to enforce the editing policies, for the benefit of all of us. I do hope that we will be able to achieve constructive results whenever our edits are crossed, and that we will resolve the issue of resources for Chocolate Thai in a way enhancing Wikipedia. take care Pundit|utter 22:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Zenwhat, what was this edit about and why have you incorrectly described it as a typo? Also, it eludes me where exactly have I personally attacked you nor mentioned your lack of experience. On the contrary, I believe you are experienced (and should not be treated lighter as a newcomer). Pundit|utter 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I misread what you wrote, so I removed the comment, as the summary says. You didn't attack me personally. You called me experienced, not inexperienced.

Oh, wait. That! I thought you meant on the ANI posting. That's a typo, because it is. Take a closer look.

This quote is listed twice:

We have a list of slang article and this can be added there. Provided there are reliable sources

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look here. [4] ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the explanation, I missed the fact it was twice there :) Pundit|utter 23:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I brought up your quick judgment only because being hasty in accusing other editors of personal attacks when they report your rules' violations is a bad practice, potentially of interest to the administrator deciding about the block. I hope the warning you received will successfully persuade you not to make more than 3 reverts in the same article within 24 hours. Per Chocolate Thai, I suggest you submit an RfC request again, or continue the previous one - this way we soon should find other editors' opinion. best Pundit|utter 00:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

credentials

sent to the address you provided. cheers Pundit|utter 23:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the positive verification. Pundit|utter 23:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on the Cannabis article

I have closed the 3RR request with a decision that no block should be imposed this time, as the edit war seems to have ended. However if either you or the other editor continue to engage in edit warring, you will be blocked (please bear in mind that you can revert three times or less and still be blocked for edit warring). I hope that you can both reach an agreement. Thanks TigerShark (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't you all just take a smoke break and come back when you're in a more peaceful mood? Sarsaparilla (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Boston Tea Party. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Credential policy

It's only being bold when no one's told you different. In this case, you were told, repeatedly, that it was not linked to any policy page and had no consensus. You attempted to dodge that by slapping it into there and claiming a sudden consensus. You're only trying to get your way, and it doesn't work like that. Plus, it was completely unnecessary expansion on a minor concept. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No one did tell me different. Somebody said, "This isn't a supplemental essay because it's not on WP:V or WP:User page", so I added it. They said it wasn't there, not that it shouldn't be. It's not an unnecessary expansion. It's a common sense clarification because, myself, I came across two users with credentials -- one of them was a sockpuppet who was probably lying, while the second person checked out. It's not explicitly stated on how people should treat credentials, but it's a big issue. The essjay controversy should be enough to establish that. I'm not trying to "get my way" on anything, because nothing I'm doing is my opinion on anything. All I'm doing is summarizing existing policy for sake of clarity.

If I'm NOT doing that, then tell me: What opinion am I putting forth in my "essay"? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember, everything on Wikipedia is recorded. You were told by Newbyguesses specifically why it is not a supplement. You ignored him, added the little mention, then reintroduced the tag anyway under a faulty rationale. You are either choosing to be ignorant or just being belligerent about the tag, neither of which will get you a favorable outcome. Common sense doesn't make a supplement, consensus does. The proposal has already been rejected in both positive and negative form. This is not consensus. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

His claims baffled me and amount to nothing more than what you're saying, "There's no consensus, revert," which is an appeal to tradition.

Please, if it's an essay, vote in the poll provided and tell me what opinions I'm putting forth instead of just saying "No consensus, revert, No consensus, revert," etc.. Per WP:BRD, we're not going to go anywhere if you keep doing that. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The B in BRD is on your side. Therefore, the D is likewise on your side. In conclusion, we will not get anywhere if you keep doing that. It's only bold once. You're just trying to keep it in place while quoting things like "appeal to tradition" in an attempt to avoid building consensus. You'll find this behavior will fail. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRD is something we do together, so that it is collaboration, not clobberation.

I bold, you revert, I discuss. You discuss too. Then either you or I bold based on our combined discussion, and the whole thing starts over again, with me or you possibly reverting again. Without your discussion and my discussion together, the whole thing can't work. WP:BRD is a combined effort and you're required to do more than just revert and say, "No consensus" in the revert summary. You're required to actually back up your revert with rational argument. You're an experienced editor. You know this! For now, I'll leave it alone and we can discuss this later when you're a bit more calm. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a two-sided thing, but when discussion is already taking place that you're ignoring I have much less need to go into it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is currently plagued by a vast amount of users who have an improper understanding of what "reliable sources" and "fringe views" are.

If that's the only thing they had an improper understanding of...

... it's not their fault though. And we can hardly expect them to learn through osmosis. We should do lectures! :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Learning through osmosis? That reminds me of an old memory.

I was in 10th grade biology class. There's a poster on the wall of Garfield with his head on his book, on his desk. A caption reads, "I'm not sleeping. I'm learning through osmosis."

And yes, it is Garfield's fault and it is their fault. In Zen, they teach through osmosis. When you get something wrong, the teacher hits you with a stick. I guess that's basically why Zen masters are considered wise and Feynman was ridiculed. He didn't carry a stick. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOSTON TEA PARTY

Hi. I put the essay in Project space (rather than my user space) because I wanted people to contribute and improve it. However such contributions are only expected from people who want to clarify its message, rather than oppose it.

In the slew of jokes you've added about various different topics, you've first disguised the real point of the essay and secondly actually made it say the opposite of what it's trying to say.

Its very simple message is that when loads of people have an argument, loads of people need to calm down.

That's it.

By adding the anti-Canadian gags (which will mean little to the vast numbers of Wikipedians who aren't American, unlike the Boston Tea Party reference which is taught in schools all over the world) you've actually made the article argue for not calmly resolving problems.

If that's your opinion, that's fine (though it goes against many Wikipedia policies), but please do start your own essay that argues with mine. I'm afraid I'll have to revert the changes.

But thanks for making me laugh; some of what you wrote was really funny!

Cheers --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Zenwhat, your Canadian history I suppose is lacking somewhat. They did fight, and lost. For example, the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, where the French had their asses handed to them by the British. According to a tour guide there (I was there), the battle lasted, {ahem}, 20 minutes. Tparameter (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Zombies

My personal recommendation to you would be to either userfy this or tone it down a lot. Your introductory material is very harsh, and I think the "Wikipedia is failing" kind of pushes the envelope. Coming on that strongly sort of dwarfs the intended humor of the zombie part, which winds up reading like an afterthought. If you really want to have an essay on how Wikipedia is failing, it should go in your userspace. If you want a page about zombies -- and who doesn't? -- I think this should be toned down a lot.

Just my two cents, but please consider it. - Revolving Bugbear 23:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Let me pull out all of the serious crap out of the lead. ☯  Zenwhat (talk)

I found it amusing, a little flattering (if I may!) and occasionally utterly bemusing. Promising! --Dweller (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hooray for zombies! I think the point comes across just fine without the serious bit. Plus, that means the Zombie:NotZombie ratio is much higher, which is always a good thing.

As a very wise person once said, "The hardest part of the zombie apocalypse will be pretending that I'm not excited." - Revolving Bugbear 23:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal

Hi, you may be interested in the discussion taking place. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please

Zen, please don't post any off-wiki content here. It's a bad idea anyway you look at it. I realize that there is an issue, but please remember that any such post can be altered, so it's not reliable. In addition, it will open up a huge can of worms because it's not actionable and can only cause strife for all involved. the_undertow ^talk 12:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Is what you say true? For instance, as I understand it, any and all relevant information can be used by administrators. It just so happens that it's usually only Wikipedia edits. In the case of something like WP:COI, outside information is critical.

I don't want to dig up any can of worms. Since IRC logs are not actionable, how should I write the posting to WP:ANI? I re-included the post but removed the quote from IRC. Is merely mentioning the IRC discussion okay? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Wikimedia IRC channels are a separate project, not part of the English Wikipedia and therefore complaining to people here isn't likely to help. You should instead pursue the IRC dispute resolution system, which ends with me.

James F. (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, you're the one I should speak to, then.

A lot of sysops on your IRC are rude and immature, in general. I don't think there's very adequate oversight over the stuff they do and it's fairly like that they've done a lot of stuff you might not agree with. Or perhaps you do. I don't know. I'm not going to contest my ban, since I don't think it would do much good. Plus, by deciding to not contest my ban, it sort of gives credibility to the FACT that I'm not just some wild troll. Generally, trolls wouldn't particularly care about anything other than being able to get away with more bad behavior.

With that said, you might find the following information useful:

NotASpy aka User:Nick blocked me for "racial and religious bigotry," in Wikipedia-en for 6 hours -- thinking it was 24-hours or 7 days or something like that, since after I initially asked about it, I got conflicting responses about how long I was banned for and Gambit said to Nick that he did something wrong. I was banned for saying that that I hate Japanese language and culture, except their religion, which is neither racially or religiously bigoted. That summary -- the part about "religious bigotry," demonstrates that it was a knee-jerk reaction. When I tried to seek some kind of IRC dispute resolution in wikimedia-ops and wikipedia, Nick checked the bot's ban summary for me (since he apparently screwed up and entered something wrong). It was at this point that I saw the part about "religious and racial bigotry." After seeing the the IRC's bot pop out the ban summary "religious and racial bigotry," I told Nick he should read more carefully and called him a nitwit. A second later, I realized how foolish it was for me to say that, so I apologized. Wasn't good enough. His ego had already been damaged. He upped the ban from Wikipedia-en to 7 days for comments made in a totally different room. In further discussions, him and Gambit were subtly taunting me.

Later, Nick seemed to revise his assertion for why he accused me of "racism," by bringing up the fact that I said German Wikipedia was the most efficiently-run -- essentially an absurd assertion that I'm a Neonazi. Then somebody made this account [5]. God knows why, but somebody else in the IRC discovered it and posted it and I sort of got the distinct feeling from it that Nick or somebody created it as "false" evidence or something. Maybe that's just paranoia.

I see now how I have to "step more lightly." But still, the sysops in IRC act like corrupt policemen. It would be a good thing if any of their bans required actual IRC conversation clips and not just self-authored summaries which can be pure fiction. And it would be good, for transparency, if they could not issue bans through private msg's to the bots, so that people could see if any ridicule summaries are made, like the one above. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A simple note

I've had very few (if any) involvements with you during my time involved with Wikipedia. So, as an outsider looking in, it seems to me that it may be time for you to strongly consider whether or not to continue participating in this project. From your recent comments and actions on this wiki, it seems to me that you no longer wish to be involved in a helpful manner. I'm referring to some of your posts on Jimbo's user talk page, WP:ANI, and elsewhere.

All I am asking is that you take a step back and consider your future with this project. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Like MZMcBride I've never interacted with you, as far as I know. I fundamentally agree with his concerns, but I'm unable to match his politeness. I think that reminding you of this is in order right now:

"Don't be a dick" is the fundamental rule of all social spaces. Every other policy for getting along is a special case of it. Although nobody on WP is empowered to ban or block somebody for being a dick (as this would be an instance of being a dick), it is still a bad idea to be one. So don't do it.

No definition of being a dick has been provided. This is deliberate. If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are being a dick, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right.

Being right about an issue does not mean you're not being a dick! Dicks can be right — but they're still dicks; if there's something in what they say that is worth hearing, it goes unheard, because no one likes listening to dicks. It doesn't matter how right they are.

henrik•talk 21:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Henrik, you are right and I admit that sometimes I am a dick, and I tried to avoid it as much as possible, and try to apologize when it happens. Everything you've said above is correct and I agree with it.

With that said, Wikipedia is overrun by dicks who I find it very difficult to collaborate with, because of how unreasonable they are. So many people are unreasonable. I've had two admins state very clearly that they are not required to discuss their reverts with me.

I don't think this just totally random. I think it's because of lack of clarity in policy (see WP:FAIL). I.E., both editors who said they didn't have to discuss their edits both seemed to have the same misunderstanding of WP:BRD. The first called it "just an essay", the second called it "not a policy," and said the discussion part was my responsibility alone. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

They don't misunderstand WP:BRD, they misunderstand people. All you have to do to win against someone who refuses to discuss is to be the guy trying to discuss, and bringing outside opinions. If the other guy won't discuss then, his points don't get heard. You can beat difficult editors by being a better consensus-builder than they are. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Witch

I knew he was a witch all along... :-) Shot info (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: About Bishonen.

Not sure why you did that - the bots would have dragged it into the abyss almost immediately, and discussion was ongoing at VPT. Just remember that the incidents noticeboard is just for that - emergency incidents. :-) east.718 at 07:47, January 28, 2008

Because I hadn't slept and have a tendency to read into things. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Controlling" IAR?

Zenwhat, I'd like to point out some history to you. I've edited the page WP:IAR thirteen times ever.

1. 10/19/06 Removing what was either a question about spelling or a dry editorial remark - revert
2. 12/12/06 moving some boxes around to make the page render better - not a revert
3. 12/31/06 Adding the actual text of the policy when it had gone missing - not a revert
4. 1/02/07 boldly trying something, in the midst of a collaborative session - not a revert
5. 4/22/07 Editing, rather than deleting, a bunch of text that some user had added (it was later deleted by someone) - not a revert
6. 4/22/07 Catching something I'd missed on the previous edit - not a revert
7. 4/24/07 Unprotecting the page so people could edit it - not a revert, not even technically an edit
8. 5/18/07 Working with yet another version of the page, adding a link suggested by someone else on the talk page - not a revert
9. 7/07/07 Adding an interwiki link while the page was protected - not a revert
10. 7/07/07 Adjusting formatting per another talk page request while page was protected - not a revert
11. 7/12/07 Again, working collaboratively with someone's new wording, rather than reverting to some previous version - not a revert
12. 7/14/07 More collaborative editing, in the same vein as the previous edit - not a revert
13. 1/21/08 Adding a bullet that had gone missing in the "See also" section - revert

See? I've made two reversions on that page in the last 30 months, and they were both edits anybody would make (anybody familiar with MoS, anyway). My edits are mostly characterized by helping get the page edited when it's protected, unprotecting the page, trying to improve rather than revert others' bold edits, and occasionally making a bold edit of my own. I don't know how you have come to think of me as someone who wants to keep that page from being edited, but I am not the guy you're looking for. I support editing IAR, just as I always have.-GTBacchus^(talk) 04:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

GTBacchus, that's really evidence to support my claim. You're not really the main guy, though, no. I did some statistics collecting. See my recent post to Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules. Also, I put in an RFC yesterday, but nobody responded because nobody cares. Also, I put the RFC template in, incorrectly, because WP:RFC is confusing and attempts to ask questions about it on the talkpage didn't get answered, and attempts to clarify it were reverted. Also, look at this nonsense. [6] ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

How is that evidence to support your thesis that I try to control the page? I don't revert to previous versions of IAR. I just don't do it. I encourage innovation and boldness there. You are simply wrong about my history. I dare you to provide coherent evidence that I control IAR. You can not.

As for your "There is no credential policy" page, I see you going the same way as others who figured they'd just show up and rewrite policy. You seem to think that you understand Wikipedia a lot better than those with more experience than yourself. Such hubris will not lead you anywhere good or useful. Again - I support editing IAR, and you habitually refuse to put your money where your mouth is. I hope you're enjoying all the attention you're getting.

If you can't get others to defend your edits when you bring more eyes to the discussion, then it's likely that your edits aren't very good. If you put in an RfC one day ago, then it's premature to complain that nobody cares. If it's true that nobody cares, then your point must be pretty unimportant. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not worry GT, these accusations are not based in fact, and are not being given credibility by anyone. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 16:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not exactly "worried". Maybe it's better if I just walk away, but I find it difficult to refrain from replying. I did find it interesting to learn about my contribution stats when compiling that list. I also wonder what we could do with the policy to prevent others from misunderstanding it in the way that Zenwhat is doing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your candor

I appreciate your candor[7] and level head, and totally sympathize, having done much worse myself. Also, if not too much trouble for you, I would welcome that you consider adding that article to your watch list. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Doubtful. I can't really see me or anyone accomplishing much on that article, heh. It's too political and with too many people watching it. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Other account

Could you please give me the name of your old account? Obviously if there's privacy concerns then I understand, it's just abundantly clear from your contributions that this is not your first. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nathyn. I lost the password and changed my e-mail address since then (and can no longer access the e-mail account registered with it). ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

German wikipedia.

I am not completely convinced that the German wikipedia is doing better. de:Wikipedia:Wikipedistik/Wachstumsprognose implies a linear growth rate, which is fundamentlly different from any considered for the English. WP:NOTFAIL points to de to shows a wiki where FA proportion is not decreasing. FA growth on en. is apparantly linear, so it's portion of wikipedia will be decreasing during times when article growth on en. can be approximated with exponential models. Taemyr (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A perspective

Maybe it would help to explain my take on this by analogy. Someday an editor may come to Wikipedia who consistently writes good articles and featured articles about sex scandals connected to the Catholic Church. Is that POV-pushing? Not really, if the community approves each of the articles as neutral and balanced. Some Catholic editors might be unhappy, but the way to resolve that is to raise the quality of other material. There's a wikiproject whose whole purpose is to improve Wikipedia's coverage of saints' biographies. That's really not much different from my offer, except that one religion is older and more established than another. Durova^Charge! 00:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If that's all they do, then they are a single-purpose account. People that do that are generally emotional nutcases who could never compromise on anything or follow policy when it leads to edits they don't like, and I can't think of any example otherwise. They may sometimes be forced to compromise out of the fear of being blocked, but their whole modus operandi is to skirt policy in any way that they can in order push a particular point-of-view.

For an idea of my perspective on Wikipedia, see M:Conflict-driven view of wiki, M:Factionalism, M:Wikindividualism, and WP:FAIL. Also, see my essays WP:WIARRM and WP:Zombies. If any of that makes you think I'm "anti-Wiki", there is a satirical essay at WP:Anti-Wikipedianism. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

ghthesoap.com

It is just my opinion. To me the blacklist is not a form of censorship but a method of preventing current disruption. If you disagree then the blacklist page is the place to air your views - others may agree. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That does not appear to answer my questions. I do not know how to use anti-spam tools. Is it possible to look into the edit history surrounding that link to find if it has been added, removed, and re-added several times? It was originally added as linkfarming. If it was removed, then re-added multiple times, this would be "disruption," and removing it would not be "censorship." ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you take this discussion to the request you made. Others may well have views and I will be off line shortly. To me the disruption was mostly in 2005 - I can see nothing more recent and - personally - I will not list the site if it is not currently disrupting wikipedia. If you have links showing current disruption that would be good but it would be best to involve others. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

your sig

hello Zenwhat -- here is just a friendly observation: I am not sure it is a good idea to link to article space from your sig: it will seriously clutter "what links here" for the article linked (viz, inundate it with links to every talkpage you ever left a comment on). Not a big deal. regards, dab (𒁳) 21:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Links from talkpages can generally be ignored because if something isn't linked from article-space, who cares? When doing searches on User:Zenwhat/Greylist, I filter them out precisely for this reason. I appreciate the comment, though! ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)