User talk:Anville
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You're wrong. I'm right.
And that won't change, not even if we fight!
—Mary Prankster, "Tell Your Friends (Part Deux)"
|
Anville
|
 Archives |
|---|
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 11:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Bogdanov Affair
Your welcome. I found the article from browsing down into Category:Banned Wikipedia users (a short list, though at least two editors I've edited with have ended up on it lately), so I was really surprised by finding a quality well-ref'd article considering the rathole I'd just crawled through, and even more so after the scary "Give up all hope ye who enter here" Gates of Hell-like intro-box. I remembered hearing about the affair back in 2002. I figured it was worth a discussion, though cries of "too soon" were expected. -- Kendrick7talk 20:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Damn it...
... I hope you'll come back. Metamagician3000 01:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, I see you've been contributing! Time to lose the "leaving Wikipedia" box? Metamagician3000 01:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, most of my "contributions" have been due to finding something by accident and realizing I was more able to fix it than anybody else. (Speaking of which, have you any thoughts on WP:FRINGE?) I still feel more "gone" than "back", and it's not as though my free time is growing without bounds. . . . We'll have to see what 2007 brings. Best wishes, Anville 19:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- My first thought about WP:FRINGE was that it was unnecessary and provocative to have it at all, but I'm more positive about it now. I'll have a look. I hope you are pleased at how the the Pseudoscience case turned out. I thought that the ArbCom handled it very wisely and fairly. (I'm not so pleased that MONGO has been desysopped in another recent case, but them's the breaks.) Metamagician3000 22:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I thought the ArbCom handled the Pseudoscience and ScienceApologist cases in a pretty judicious way. While I have often been frustrated by Wikipedia's inability to deal with chronic problems — cruft buildup in Featured Articles, for example — whenever a group of Wikipedians is forced to make a judgment call, it seems to work out well by the time the bits settle. Anville 00:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- My first thought about WP:FRINGE was that it was unnecessary and provocative to have it at all, but I'm more positive about it now. I'll have a look. I hope you are pleased at how the the Pseudoscience case turned out. I thought that the ArbCom handled it very wisely and fairly. (I'm not so pleased that MONGO has been desysopped in another recent case, but them's the breaks.) Metamagician3000 22:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, most of my "contributions" have been due to finding something by accident and realizing I was more able to fix it than anybody else. (Speaking of which, have you any thoughts on WP:FRINGE?) I still feel more "gone" than "back", and it's not as though my free time is growing without bounds. . . . We'll have to see what 2007 brings. Best wishes, Anville 19:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Retrocausality
As per JzG's recommendation, I've totally reworked the above article as a revamped stub. Please take another look if you like. Thanks Bwithh 20:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] And Chaos
Good work on the article. I've changed my vote. If you haven't already, I recommend contacting the original AFD nominator and request he/she withdraw the nomination. Failing that, if the article is deleted it can always be recreated under the correct title format. Do you know the year the book was published? There should be a year category added to the article. 23skidoo 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: AfD
Thanks, for the note about the changes made to the "And Chaos Died" article. I'm always a proponent of fixing articles rather than deleting them wherever possible, and it looks like some great progress was made. great job! I'm definately going to argue for a keep on the basis of a good cleanup and sourcing.
Also, just so you know, you seem like you might be interested in some changes I've been mulling over making to Sex in science fiction to give 80's sci/fi (IE the cyberpunk movement) some representation given the sociological themes brought up in seminal works of the genre like "Neuromancer" and "Islands in the Net". I'm also considering writing some articles for author Walter Jon Williams. If you'd like to help or just be kept abreast of any changes just let me know!
Thanks again, Wintermut3 22:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Those all sound like great things to work on. Unfortunately, I haven't had the time lately to contribute to WP in any major way (and it looks like this situation won't change for the foreseeable future). Still, if you'd like any input — or if you've put something on Peer review or FAC — let me know. E-mails will reach me more surely and rapidly than comments on this page, although I'll try to check both of them frequently.
- Metamagician3000 is around more often than I am these days and is interested in many of the same topics. Anville 22:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Energy: world resources and consumption
Could you please look at the brand new Energy: world resources and consumption and comment if it is ready to be a featured article? Thank you for your help.
Frank van Mierlo 13:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:And Chaos Died.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:And Chaos Died.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, let me state that the image is a book cover (for the Joanna Russ novel And Chaos Died) which has since been replaced by the first-edition cover. It can be deleted without concern. Anville 17:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] review request
I'd like to get your thoughts on User:MikeURL/Credentials. One thing I have tried to do is make sure that there is an alternative policy that neither elevates nor denigrates credentials on wikipedia.MikeURL 02:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for showing the link
I appreciate you showing the link to Essjay controversy. Apparently I missed out the whole issue even though I was very active at that time in Wikipedia. Thanks again. OhanaUnited 04:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. No reply needed.
[edit] Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community_discussion
I think you have a good idea on the section on synthesis, and I have suggested what might be done about it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Here's another example. To me the chunk of material about the mating habits of non-human animals is original research in the context of an article about polyamory, even if someone can provide a citation. Why? Because it is not an example of polyamory - it is, at best, tangentially connected in some way, and we are being invited to draw a conclusion about what that way might be. If the obvious additional comment were made, "Therefore polyamory is natural and good", the OR nature of it would be obvious, but the fact that no connection is explicitly made does not change the fact that it is someone conducting his/her own research project. On the other hand, if the conclusion to be drawn were something uncontroversial, or if a citation could be provided not only for the facts but also for the inference, it would look less like someone on their own frolic. The current AfD re the list of FRSs who have a public position on religion is also an example, though not everyone seems to see it that way. Metamagician3000 09:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
