User talk:Raeky/Archives/2013/February

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader (Irish Citizen Army Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. Florida 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

  • United States Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
  • Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
  • Chicago HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of British Empire The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Mushroom Upload Tool no longer exists

The http://raeky.com/MushInfo.php tool no longer exists. I have edited it out of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:MushroomObserver. It would be awesome if you could fix it and add it back into the template.

Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 04:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The functionality of that script has been superseded by the Flinfo script... They got removed after the functionality was incorporated into that script. — raekyt 20:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

Brady Haran

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to Brady Haran has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

First off, it's not, it's a valid template, second off WP:DTTR, and third, I'ts now up for DR. Abusing warning templates isn't a good idea, like you just did here. — raekyt 15:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
You did not open a discussion about the deletion of the article, nor presented a specific complaint about it. Please stop vandalizing. If you think the article needs more citations or more information about notability, discuss it first, or simply take the time and I'll do it. But do not delete the article on your own. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I highly suggest you learn about the policies and how things are done here at Wikipedia. Throwing around the word vandal without understanding it's strict meaning at WP:VANDAL, not only can be construed as WP:UNCIVIL it shows your lack of understanding of policies. First step when an editor finds an article they think does not meet WP:N is to tag it with appropriate article tags, which put's it in watch lists so people who are good at finding sources can find the article and help it. Then you WP:PROD it which gives plenty of time to find and improve the article if it's possible before deletion. Since your lack of understanding of how things work here at Wikipedia, and I'm assuming good faith here that it's ignorance not malfeasance, you deleted the tags, you left me with no other alternative than to nominate it for deletion, since that is the next step if someone removes the PROD. So before you get in trouble for violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, I'd suggest you step back and review your actions just now. — raekyt 16:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
You still have not presented a single reason why the article should be removed. No discussion was opened. Are you really here to contribute or to remove content as you wish without the other members' consent and without any discussion? You mentioned notability. Brady Haran is a Science Magazine SPORE prize winner, he has worked as a reporter for BBC, has published more than a thousand educational videos, is one of the most famous producer of educational videos on the web, and there is already an article about one of his channels. Can we even discuss first before you start removing content like a dictator? The article is a stub, because it's new, take the time and it will be improved. If you delete, guess what? It won't be improved! Also, you mentioned the sources. The only information not sourced in the article is his birthday, which I checked via e-mail and still haven't found any other reliable source. The solution is to put a "reference needed" there, not to delete the whole article! Do it as you wish, I won't win this fight, anyway, but if you're really acting on good faith, you should reconsider it. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what you think tagging the article for WP:N and the WP:PROD was if not giving a reason for deletion, nor the statement at the DR discussion (which is a discussion). If you think he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG make your case at the DR discussion page. There is no dictatorial action here, I brought the article up for review and discussion to see if it should be deleted on notability grounds. So far I haven't seen any evidence he himself outside of his projects is notable. In case you didn't notice, I was the creator of the periodic table videos article, and sourced the image of the professor from Brady. I'm not some random, drive by editor, but I never made an article for Brady because I never saw him meeting notability guidelines. Your comments really read as if you don't understand how things are done here, how we discuss stuff, and how things like this play out. Make your case at the DR review page for the article, if you think we're wrong in your assessment. — raekyt 16:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Do it as you wish, I can't possibly win this fight. I came here to improve the article, when I saw the deletion tag. It is pretty frustrating to see important content being removed by one single person and all the work done in preparing the article being thrown into the trash. All because a single person doesn't think he is notable enough to have an article. Do you really think Paul the Octopus is more notable than Brady? Have fun removing high quality and useful information, saying it's not vandalism and thanks for making Wikipedia the "sum of all human knowledge" (WP:CTW). --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
With 73 references, Yes. And that award is for one of his projects, not him. — raekyt 17:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Because it is a much bigger and older article. But still, it has 547 characters per citation and Brady's article has 457 (114 if you count external links). If you allow the article to be improved, it will certainly have much more citations and important information. Not if you delete, of course. "And that award is for one of his projects, not him" -- So what? The same goes for the Nobel Prize. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Age of the article doesn't mean much, notability of the subject is what is at issue. As for deletion of your article, there's FAR to many inclusionists that hawk over the DR process, so it's a good chance enough of them will vote to keep it. You with a keep vote will tip it more in your favor. It's after all a WP:CONSENSUS procedure, not a unilateral action by one editor as you seem to think I have the power to do. — raekyt 11:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Brady_Haran_01.jpg

I forwarded the e-mail with the permission to use the file, but now it says, since Brady is the one appearing in the picture, someone else took it and he is the holder of the copyright, not Brady. Now a freaking tripod holds a copyright? And the other file, under the exact same circumstances, which I asked to be removed due to an error uploading it, someone removed the tag requiring the file to be deleted. Please, stop trying to undo my contributions. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If it was a tripod, just e-mail Brady and have him say it was a tripod, and not someone else, if it was someone else then that person holds the copyright. — raekyt 11:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Brilliant Dadashova

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Brilliant Dadashova. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for defending my userpage against vandalism from a disgruntled ip while I was away. I appreciate it! :)

  — Jess· Δ♥ 05:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

Please comment on Talk:List of pantheists

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of pantheists. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Brady Haran

Hello, I'm Hugo Spinelli. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Brady Haran because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The list of channels is the most important feature of the article. It was moved to the external links section by User:MichaelQSchmidt. Please, discuss the issue before deleting useful information. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Brady Haran. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. WP:CONSENSUS is not built in a few minutes, without debate and especially when the discussion is split.

Your recent editing history at Brady Haran shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Apologize

Sorry for making a personal attack on Talk:Brady_Haran#tagging_.22multiple_issues.22 with no purpose at all. It won't happen again. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

Recent Edit of Objections to Evolution- Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics

I'm sorry about the bad edit. There are no authoritative sources, I suppose, until the American Journal of Physics retracts the article by Daniel Styer. I thought Wiki should know what I was doing about the AJP article. This is the letter I sent to the president of a college:

345 Webster Ave., Apt. 4-O Brooklyn, NY 11230 February 21, 2013 Patrick T. Harker University of Delaware Newark, Delaware Dear Mr. Harker, Dr. Stephen Barr and Dr. Edmund Nowak are not supporting my efforts to get the American Journal of Physics to retract an article published in November, 2008 (“Entropy and evolution,” Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11). This article disseminates misinformation about evolutionary biology and has no scientific value. The AJP is not following accepted procedures for a peer-reviewed article when an error has been pointed out. By his silence and inaction, Nowak is helping the AJP cover up its mistake. Barr is actively supporting the AJP. The Catholic Truth of Scotland published an essay I wrote in May, 2012, about this because of the connection between evolution and religious faith in the minds of many people. The following link makes it clear to anyone why the AJP article is absurd: http://creationwiki.org/Pseudoscience_in_the_American_Journal_of_Physics. Dr. Stephen Barr and Dr. Randy Isaac are two prominent physicists who write about evolution and religion and who are Christians. They are also guilty of supporting the actions of the AJP and its publishers. Barr angrily wrote to me saying that I was wrong and was harming the Catholic Church. Isaac offered to “walk me through” the matter. Barr and Isaac were sincere at first, but their behavior changed for the worse when I replied to their condescending response to my allegations. This does not justify the negative behavior of your subordinates, but rather shows how important it is for the AJP to retract the article. The theory of evolution is that mammals evolved from bacteria over a period of 3.5 billion years. Many who call this theory a fact think the theory that free will is an illusion is also a fact. Both theories are related to religious faith. Religion causes conflict between people, and conflict causes anxiety. Inhibition is a defense mechanism against anxiety, and many scientists are inhibited from thinking intelligently and rationally and behaving honestly about evolution. Fact or theory, evolution gives rise to the question of what caused it. The theory of natural selection only explains the adaptation of species to the environment. In other words, natural selection explains why giraffes have long necks, but not how giraffes evolved from bacteria in only 3.5 billion years. Evolutionary biologists always speak of “adaptive evolution.” This limitation of the explanatory power of natural selection gives rise to the erroneous idea that evolution violates the laws of physics, specifically the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that nature tends to go from order to disorder and that entropy either increases or remains the same. Entropy is a thermodynamic variable related to heat and temperature. The truth is that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to the evolution of stars or biological evolution. The AJP article says the second law is not violated because it only applies to isolated systems, not systems exposed to sunlight. This reasoning is literally unintelligible. The idea that evolution violates the second law is intelligible, but simply wrong. What makes the AJP article morally offensive is that it misapplies a standard thermodynamic equation to prove that the second law of thermodynamics is not violated. Anyone who can’t see that the calculation is nonsense should not be teaching thermodynamics. Anyone who remains silent about this outrageous article is a moral coward. Very truly yours,

David Roemer http://www.newevangelization.info 347-417-4703 Faxed to 302-831-6023

This is my letter to the AAAS:

Open letter to Allen Goldman (American Association for the Advancement of Science, Physics Section) and Howard Wactlar (National Science Foundation, Division of Information and Intelligent Systems): The American Journal of Physics published an article (“Entropy and evolution,” Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11, November 2008) that begins with the statement: “The creationist argument is that advanced organisms are more orderly than primitive organisms, and hence as evolution proceeds living things become more ordered, that is less disordered, that is less entropic. Because the second law of thermodynamics prohibits a decrease in entropy, it therefore prohibits biological evolution.” The author says, “Two anonymous referees made valuable suggestions that improved this article significantly.” This raises the possibility that the peer-reviewers were more interested in anti-creationist propaganda than in making sure the article is a contribution to scientific knowledge. The article says evolution decreased the entropy of the biosphere and estimates the decrease in joule/degrees. The article’s statements about evolution and entropy are unintelligible. I pointed out the errors and misinformation in the article to American Journal of Physics, the American Association of Physics Teachers, and the American Institute of Physics in a number of communications. The AJP, the AAPT, and the AIP are refusing to retract the article, which I think is the only remedy for its nonsense. I refer you to the following sources of information about evolution and thermodynamics: 1) McIntosh, A.C., "Information and entropy – top -down or bottom-up development in living systems?", Int. J. of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics. Vol. 4, No. 4 (2009), pp. 351 to 385. 2) Fourth paragraph of Ilya Prigogine, Gregoire Nicolis, and Agnes Babloyantz, “Thermodynamics of evolution”, Physics Today 25(11) (1972), pp. 23 to 28. View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3071090. 3) http://creationwiki.org/Pseudoscience_in_the_American_Journal_of_Physics 4) My article in http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/MAYnewsletter12.pdf 5) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/more_philosophical_than_scient052441.html Very truly yours, David Roemer 347-417-4703 http://www.newevangelization.info ____ — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Roemer (talk • contribs) 12:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You need to take it to the article's talk page, which is why I reverted you. Your letter is WP:PRIMARY and not a reliable source therefore can't be used for anything. The Physic's Today article from November 1972 is probably irrelevant anyway, being so old (Oldest I can get online through my university is 1975 and I can't be bothered to go get the print edition in person for something like this), and isn't likely a WP:RS, and is probably completely debunked elsewhere. A retracted paper is probably not a reliable source, but that's for the talk page to discuss. Creation Wiki is ENTIRELY not a reliable source, has no standards and is wp:OR of whoever wrote it, no sources. Evolution News is a Discovery Institute website so extremely biased and I highly doubt constitutes a WP:RS. As for the journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, I don't know anything about it, but it sounds like a creationist journal and therefore probably not a WP:RS. — raekyt 12:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of consensus material

Stop mirroring this conversation on my talk page, it belongs on Talk:Chiropractic#Deletion_of_consensus_material
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi Raeky. You deleted consensus material negotiated at chiropractic:talk. The main dispute revolves around the effectiveness of SMT which Doc James (MD) and Puhlaa (DC) are seeking to reach a scientific consensus and manipulative therapy. The first two paragraphs of the lead are no longer in dispute based on the agreements at talk:chiropractic. I am asking kindly to self-revert given this new information. Otherwise I will have to undo your good faith edit. Hope you don't take this personally, I am trying to be as transparent as possible. Regards, DVMt (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus does not a few minutes make for something as important as the lead paragraph. Just because a brand new user wanted it in it, and obviously you want it because it makes Chiropractic sound more legitimate, is NOT consensus. Give it a few days for people to discuss per WP:BRD. — raekyt 04:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting the consensus at talk. The first two paragraphs of the revised lead are not in dispute. Doc James, the medical doctor, and Puhlaa, the chiropractor are trying to achieve consensus on the 3rd paragraph. I do not understand your issue here. Your accusations of me are lacking both civility and good faith. I understand your personal feelings towards the subject matter is a negative one. Nevertheless unless you have scientific sources (systematic reviews) that dispute the consensus material reached by a medical doctor and chiropractor, you have no basis to revert the material agreed upon the two professions. DVMt (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Show me exactly where this consensus was reached here and I'll retract it, I just don't see it. I see you starting a discussion on it, then a start of a discussion, but definitely no consensus being reached in wording to make dramatic changes to the lead sentence and paragraph? — raekyt 04:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on you Raeky. I have provided the evidence already. This is beginning to look like WP:IDHT on your part. I have asked you on the chiropractic talk page to specifically address why you deleted consensus material. The discussion brought up several concerns by Puhlaa and Doc James. These involved classification as traditional/CAM in the opening sentence as opposed to being further down in the 1st paragraph. Puhlaa was concerned with the term 'chiropractic medicine' and suggested chiropractic care would be more NPOV. Doc James did not disagree and they moved other key points. Other issues regarded primarily effectiveness and scope of practice including language and sources. These have not reached consensus. As consensus was reached, I added the revisions by both Puhlaa and Doc James. That's how the intro paragraph and second paragraph achieved consensus, by a medical doctor and a chiropractor. I merely was the one who 'reported it' when adding it to the main article. I added this after days passed to make sure there wasn't any further revisions. Puhlaa and Doc James have now moved onto a discussion on effectiveness. Note that I did not change the 3rd paragraph at the main article. It still remains until a consensus at talk is reached. I have done my part to explain to you the situation as I am a regular contributor there at both the talk pages and the article. The burden is on you, who does not contribute to the page and only reverts. DVMt (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
You still haven't shown where the wording was discussed for the lead paragraph, your contention that it was reached by consensus, is sounding more like a consensus of just you. — raekyt 04:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I have shown it and described it. You are now in violation of IDHT. Also you have not provided any evidence for basis that there is NOT a consensus at talk. On the contrary the medical doctor and chiropractor agree on the language and sources of the opening 2 paragraphs. Consensus does not require unanimity. For the revised edit, supportive parties include a medical doctor (Doc James) a chiropractor (Puhlaa) and a veterinarian (DVMt). Only you are opposed to the edit in question. DVMt (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. I simply had no opinion on the first two paragraphs. That is not support. And refusal to provide links to back up ones paraphrasing of others is poor form by DVMt. Grrr Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
My feeling is that he's definitely a WP:TE editor... and gets quite aggressive when you disagree with his position. — raekyt 23:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Drew University

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Drew University. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

HS

He will never be satisfied with explanations, and the more sensible they are the harder he will fight. He will see fault no matter what. One of my very early responses to him, perhaps the first, was the only one that had any positive results. But those positive results were felt only because it satisfied me to tell him.... Well, if he removes the projects, we'll have two choices: revert or just let the article suffer in that one small area. – S. Rich (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raeky/Archives/2013/February&oldid=1148823980"