This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
References at Republic of Texas
Hi David, I think we should use inline citations at Republic of Texas, using the ref tags. It makes it easier to see what sources say what --AW 18:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Davidwr. I see you are relatively new here. In that case, I thank you for discussing the matter we have been in such a calm, cool, logical manner. It is much appreciated. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 23:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Daidwr, my concern over even having a "further reading section at all" is that if the article is based on research, the relevant sources should already have been part of the references. As an academic librarian, I find that there has been a confusing departure in bibliographic referencing protocols in the entire Wikipedia format.
If you are citing reference sources, these are normally listed as a footnote or endnote. Since there is no provision for footnoting, then the endnote is the only option. Yet the Wikipedia guidelines do not refer to an endnote, rather editors have incorporated a "notes" section after the main body of text. Then on top of the notes section is another section called "references" which would normally be called a "bibliography" in research and academic writing which Wikipedia strives to emulate. There is a provision for separate notes and references but most Wikipedia editors follow a format that combines the two lists, which is fine since the notes and referenced sources can be seen in relation to each other in a "tight" format.
Now on top of all of this is the "Further reading" (or viewing, or listening, etc.) section which allows editors to provide a completely new listing of sources. First, when there is no provision for individual research or "first-hand" commentary, why is there a listing of personal favourites or "any books, articles, web pages, et cetera that you recommend as further reading, useful background, or sources of further information to readers?" If these sources were so important, why were they not used for research in the first place?
Then to cap off the whole "sloppy mess" is the over-arching guidelines that state:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of encyclopedias, striving for accuracy with "no original research."
Wikipedia has a "neutral point of view," advocating no single point of view, presenting each point of view accurately and providing context, citing verifiable, authoritative sources.
Wikipedia is free content anyone may edit and no individual controls any specific article.
Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general "pillars."
Wikipedia has an established code of conduct and respect.
That Davidwr, is why I usually do not have a "Further reading" section in my edits. It is confusing enough to have a "references" page, why introduce more references? Now don't get me started on the mess over using an APA bibliographic style guide over the usual MLA guide and then those %4#2*& "templates." That sums up my concerns over the bibliographical sourcing that is recommended by Wikipedia. IMHO Bzuk 12:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
How did you find my newly created article on the Astronaut Hall of Fame? I was surprised that nobody wrote such an article. I was also surprised on how you found it. Is there a list of new articles? I'm a new user so I don't know all the ins and outs.Feddhicks 21:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I am adding the new inductees to the new category I'm creating. I wanted to tie it in with the existing page. Davidwr 21:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
AACS encryption key controversy
about your edits to AACS encryption key controversy. 1: isn't this information in the article already ? 2: Does it really need to be called "in popular culture" ???? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem. :) It was an accident, actually- meant to revert something else but my laptop pointer slipped. Diagonalfish 20:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deletion
Discussion of 09f9 controversy, starting May 6, 2007
You need to understand I have no say in this. The foundation has decided to restrict this (the devs made it impossible to put the code in Wikipedia for example), and attempting to circumvent this is disruptive. I am not censoring you, the operators of Wikipedia have decided they do not want this hex code on the site. Prodegotalk 03:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I was relying on this statement by Jimbo Wales:
“
To my knowledge, the foundation has not been served with a cease-and-desist order, and neither has the Foundation expressed any opinion on this matter. Speaking in my individual capacity in my traditional role in Wikipedia, I am simply advising everyone to stay relaxed and focussed on the big picture goals of Wikipedia, and understand that people who disagree with you on this point are also human beings who love freedom of information.--Jimbo Wales 19:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
”
from User_talk:Jimbo Wales#Official Office.2FWMF response to HD-DVD key controversy. That statement is over 2 days old. Is it outdated? By the way, I have tried to put the key in my user page. The PREVIEW succeeded, I chose not to save the page, I was just testing. I confess I did cheat - I knew about the spam-filter so I used one of the many non-hexadecimal version of the number floating around the Internet. davidwr 09f9 03:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
That is still current, but read Wikipedia:Keyspam as well. The fact that the devs (who rarely take an active role in the day to day operation of Wikipedia) added the code to the internal spam regex shows that there is a need to prevent this, like all copyright violations. WP:COPYVIO explains that. Prodegotalk 04:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Who/what group made the decision to add that to the spamfilter? If it was anyone other than Wikipedia's lawyers, then what was the officially stated rationale and where can I read the official statement? By the way, as the numbers themselves are not and cannot be copyrighted, they can be used in any way that does not constitute an anti-circumvention device. For example, the freedom flag, my signature, and other similar works of art and signatures are not in any form that can be directly used as a number.
You are right, but: "it doesn't matter. The AACS-LA takedown letter is not claiming that the key is copyrightable, but rather that it is (or is a component of) a circumvention technology. The DMCA does not require that a circumvention technology be, itself, copyrightable to enjoy protection"[1] If the only use of the number is to encourage spreading of the key, that is a problem. I do not know who added it to the filter, but this has never happened before to my knowledge. This was a change to the database, not the filter admins can edit. If you have questions about the law, User:BD2412 should be able to answer them far better then I can. Prodegotalk 04:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
If the only use of the number is to encourage spreading of the key, that is a problem. At this point, the use of the number outside Wikipedia is a form of protest rather than to spread a means to circumvent copyright, much like wearing black arm-bands or wearing duct-tape over one's mouth. I suspect the same is true on Wikipedia. davidwr 09f9 04:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the "politically proper" way to ask the Wikimedia Foundation to issue an official statement as to why the code is censored? The public, the administrators, the editors, and specifically the editors of affected material have a moral right to know. davidwr 09f9 04:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the reason this is considered a protest is because it is distributing the encryption key against AACS's wishes. Since the only use of the key (yes, you could theoretically use it for something else, but...) is so that you can decrypt and copy copyrighted files... There really is no way to ask for the foundations opinion, this is the closest we've got. Though Kat is a member of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees, that does not officially represent their opinion. Prodegotalk 04:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
From Kat's letter: Hosting illegal content doesn't help us do that. While I agree Wikipedia should not be hosting illegal material, I do not concede that any number can in and of itself be illegal under US law. Even if the raw number may be illegal in the context of "here's a number you can use to illegally rip off a DVD: 09f9..." the same number used in a "meta-context" like "the number 09f9... is at the heart of controversy" or "Protest t-shirts for sale, today's new addition: 09f9..." are clearly covered under the 1st ammendment, at least in the USA. Disclaimer: IANAL. I've asked User:BD2412 for his input on this as well. Speaking of illegal numbers, some secret agent probably has a badge number of 31415. Should that number be banned from Wikipedia because it could get the secret agent killed? Well, I would recommend deleting any article-version that tied that number to the secret agent in question. But I would not ban the number. I see the 09f9 situation as similar but much less serious because nobody's life is at stake. davidwr 09f9 05:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I read through the thread on wikien-l. It seems the administrators are divided over whether to allow the key in relevant articles. Now that I have some background, I can see why the key was added to the filter as an emergency action. Something I don't understand though: Now that the emergency has passed, why hasn't one of the following happened: 1) have the office take charge of the issue, 2) un-ban the string for the handful of relevant articles or altogether, or 3) write up a statement explaining the current position, including the strongest arguments and counter-arguments from both sides of the issue, and a date when the issue will be re-evaluated. #1 should only be done if the office gets a lawyer to say there is a legal risk and the office determines the risk is too high. #2a is obviously my preferred choice as long as the spam level is high, after that #2b is the best choice. davidwr 09f9 06:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It is an empty description page that was mistakenly created for a Commons-hosted image. The actual image won't be deleted. --Strangerer (Talk) 05:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my misunderstanding. davidwr 09f9 05:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe you are citing the wrong editor in your note on my talk page and on the John Glenn talk page. The edit that I made is here — where I reverted vandalism (calling John Glenn "Can't Read"). The edit following mine [2], by 71.244.140.70, where it was changed to "magnetic ***" in the body of the article is probably the one you are referring to. Your subsequent reversion was back to mine.
I would appeciate it if you would correct this error (attributing the reversion to me) both on the John Glenn talk page and on my talk page.
Done. You have my sincerest apologies. davidwr 09f9 03:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for making the correction. On another note, I noticed that your colorful signature does not contain an internal link to your user page nor your user talk page. (See WP:Signature#Internal_links). In the standard signature, rendered by ~~~~ , a link to one's userpage is added. This is helpful if an editor wants to respond to you. When I wanted to respond to your message on my talk page, it required that I go to my page history to link back to you. It would be helpful if you would add such to your signature. It wouldn't prevent a colorful signature. Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Given the anon user's string of contributions adding the same external link to multiple articles, I considered the addition of the link to be spam. If, after examining the information contained at the website, you find it would be a useful, unique resource, feel free to add it back to the SCOTUS project's page. · jersykotalk 00:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I missed the fact that it was a pay site. That plus anonymity/lack of accountability plus mass seeding = spam even if it is useful. davidwr09f9(talk) 00:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Dixie High School (Utah) has been the subject of a lot of vandalism and "juvenile" edits lately. It would be great if an actual student watched the page and reverted the vandalism. davidwr 09f9(talk) 03:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
--Aporras22 22:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I am a current student at Dixie High I have put this page on my watchlist and I have frequently been fixing the vandalism that has been going on. I try to go on about once every one to two weeks to make sure nothing has been vandalized but ever since I've started watching it nothing has seemed to change.
Thanks for the TexShare thanks!
Hello David. Thanks for your interest in the TexShare library consortium and for your initial stem article. We appreciate it. By the way, are you the author of the Catalogablog site? The blog is quite popular among librarians. Mikea2 15:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome. No, I am not the author of that site. davidwr (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Canadian2004PoppyQuarter.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Canadian2004PoppyQuarter.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell(talk) (random) 13:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I have tried and failed to find a clearly-free-use image of the poppy quarter. If you or anyone else finds one please replace my image. davidwr (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Mooted, another image is available on the commons.
Young Junior High School link
Even though it has no incoming links, I think it's plausible that someone might type this in looking for this school. If you feel strongly about it, list the redirect at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Thanks, NawlinWiki 04:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. There are several Young Junior High schools in the USA, so the odds are in fact that it would cause harm in that respect. However, it is over a year old and might break external links. davidwr (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Bahia
Thank you, I have corrected it yet! Opinoso 04:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Prodding Paul Davidoff
Nope, no objections. As I recall the anon requester, back when Wikipedia:Articles for creation was new, promised to expand the article once it was created, but obviously didn't. I don't know anything more about it than what's there; good luck on your research, but if you don't think it belongs here, so be it. Thank you very much for the polite note, however; a little thoughtfulness goes a long way. :) — Catherine\talk 05:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
initial comments by Henriettaz, around 11:02 16 July 2007
The source that is used to rewrite Black Africa's history, is original. The editors use this original source to redefine the term sub-saharan. In the current version, it is defined as solely a geographic label, which is inaccurate. Sub-saharan Africa is not only geographic, as the Sahara is not inhabited and uninhabitable, but also, and most importantly, racial, cultural and historical. The fact that the editors repeatedly deleted the addition of an anti-afrocentric critique is significant. Why wikipedia has not yet noticed the "novelty" of this interpretation is shocking, and possibly also due to the fact that this same original source is used in all related articles, which redirect to it and vice versa. According to wikipedia, original research is : "a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a POSITION — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "NOVEL narrative or historical interpretation."
The article attempts to efface sub-saharan africa's sub-saharaness. It also arrogantly claims that the tern is now "obsolete" and considered pejorative. This is untrue. The term is not obsolete, in fact, it is used by the whole world and all of academia. It is, furthermore, not considered pejorative, except by this "band" of eccentrics, who equate blacksness with inferiority. The article attempts to blur definitions, and makes absurd claims such as,"Africa as a whole was commonly known as "the Dark continent", a term that was usually intended to refer to the Sub-Saharan region. This was partly due to the skin color of its inhabitants." Africa was not commonly known as the dark continent. Sub-saharan Africa, or Black Africa, was known as the dark continent. In fact, North Africa is known as L'afrique Blanche in French, which means White Africa, as the region is largely francophone, and the country that is most familiar with the region is France. It goes on to state that "Further, they are misleading, as dark-skinned Africans are indigenous to much of North Africa, as well." this, again, is inaccurate. Indigenous North Africans are in fact of Eurasian stock, and though Mediterranean peoples and Arabs are known to be tanned or, funnily enough "mediterranean" as in olive-toned, they are clearly quite distinguishable from Sub-saharan or Black Africans. The confusion arises from the inaccurate inclusion of Sudan and Mauritania (not ancient mauritanius) to North Africa, again on wikipedia, two sub-saharan countries. In fact, the very name Sudanese is an Arabic one meaning the black people in Arabic. Arabs themselves named the people of this region, though the distinction was in no way pejorative. Wikipedians keep using UN maps that were devised for "statistical purposes" by the UN to substantiate their inaccuracies. Sadly, hitherto, these wikipedians (and they are always the same when it comes to this region) have overlooked the UN's own caveat that these maps were devised solely for "statistical purposes for carrying our statistical analysis" and should therefore not be used in the study of non-statistical research, as the UN itself warns, "It does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations." Yet, these maps are being used to define and redraw maps. [note: above unsigned comment made on or about 11:02, 16 July 2007 User:Henriettaz (User_talk:Henriettaz| contribs)]
Addendum: I should also mention that I couldn't care less anymore. I have tried to edit these articles for the past 3 weeks, was inflamed, harrassed, provoked, angered. As a newbie, I reacted rather stupidly and naively as I had no idea as to how one is expected to behave. Now, of course, I know about all the rules etc. However, my experience has been that content matters very little, and that articles are veritably hijacked, owned etc. by certain people. After reading the nonsense about North Africa and the Arab world, I simply do not believe that this project makes much sense. The rules are simply strange and sources are ignored. My problem with the sub-saharan article is not at all complex yet no one wants to look into the sources. I simply do not care, but I think it is unfair that certain people impose their "opinions" on the world through the manipulation of the system. So, I'm not at all vested in this, I just thought I'd point out the obvious, though if you are like the others, you will probably OVERLOOK the main problem: content/flimsy, bizarre source. [note: above unsigned comment made on or about 11:22, 16 July 2007 User:Henriettaz (User_talk:Henriettaz| contribs)]
More comments by various editors between 12:51 and 17:37 16 July 2007
Davidwr, please review a history of Ezeu's contributions before judging the user Mariam83. A good place to start would be the dispute itself and how it started initially. Ezeu, as an admin, did not behave as an admin at first, and sided with the user Halaqah, who used a sockpuppet "Rastarule" during the dispute, to gang up, with Ezeu, against Mariam83. User Halaqah has a dictatorial grip over many articles with the aid of administrators like Ezeu. User Halaqa was reported by another administrator [3] for his questionable conduct during the dispute. I wonder WHY ANOTHER administrator noticed this behavior and not the one that sided with him, Ezeu, who behaved like an editor rather than an administrator the entire time. A perfect example of Ezeu's siding is evident if one carefully reads the archive. Under the section titled "removed POV ranting", he very clearly sides with Halaqah and his sockpuppet Rastarule, and engages in inflamming. He also neglects to focus on the source, which is what began the dispute in the first place. Ezeu has removed many tags, that should not have been removed, simply our of vengeance. I repeatedly asked all involved not to personalize the topics, but they did so rather maliciously, with the hope of overshadowing the main problem: content, source. Again, I do not really care anymore because clearly this project is flawed, sadly because of users who abuse its editing system to replace facts with propaganda. Ezeu is once again, attempting to detract from the main problem: content, by focusing on witiquette, which he himself lacks. He has been protecting pages, reverting blindly etc., and behaving more like a vindictive editor than an administrator, which is why I was shocked to learn that he was one. The removal of tags is unacceptable, and the pretension that they are not deserved is absurd. [unsigned comment made 14:11, 16 July 2007 Henriettaz (Talk | contribs)]
The manipulation of language is malicious. Ezeu again displays his manipulative ways, which is what caused all this noise in the first place. Note that he tries to detract from the main issue, and interjects with sockpuppet evidence (much of it untrue) in an attempt to discredit a user. If the archives are perused, it will quickly surface that Mariam83 was intially not a disruptor and not abusive, but merely amended some grossly inaccurate articles. It is in fact abusive for the writers of this propaganda to impose their lies on the public. Initially, you engaged in the brouhaha, and even corroborated Halaqah's distortion. Again, I couldn't care less about what happens here anymore as it is clearly a circus, and wikipedia is obviously not an "encyclopedia" that "anyone" can edit. It is, in fact, controlled by a cadre of editors/administrators who manipulate the system to institutionalize falsities and to monopolize knowledge. All I initially tried to do was correct LIES. The war that ensued, which Ezeu & co. (with years of experience, admin tools& familiarity with the system) waged, is not only corrupt and SAD, but completely inimical to the yielding of anything even remotely balanced or truthful. [unsigned comment made 14:35, 16 July 2007 Henriettaz (Talk | contribs)]
Another very active corrupt administrator is FayssalF. He is working very hard to help established POV gangs maintain control over their articles. His favorite editors are Collounsbury, Bouha/Drmaik, and anyone who agrees with them:
[[4]]are Cohexer and 66.141.23.186. Could you revert and semi-ptotect the pages (Tunisia, Africa Province among others? Thanks Bouha 13:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
the following 4 paragraphs is one long edit
-(Same link as above) Thanks for the protect
Fun stuff those odd little attacks. collounsbury 12:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC).
-Faysal Mate
Can you help out on the Maghrebine pages and this bizarre edit war set off by Mariam83? As I noted in comments, I don't even necessarily disagree with some (even a good many) of her edits, but the wholesale vandalistic editing with refusal to discuss at all is bloody stunning. Also rather disturbing is the editing on the African connexion angle, mate, as well as her comments on pages re 3bid, quite racialistic. Best collounsbury 14:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC).
I'll do my best asap. No worries. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
~Unfortunately, what FayssalF did was protect the page automatically, thus sparking off a battle of sorts. He admitted to NOT reading content or even argument, and hence, blindly obliged his "mate." He has now obliged Bouha, protected his articles, as though his FLAWED knowledge were final, as well as protected Maghreb, Berber, North Africa etc. Sadly, Collounsbury lied, as usual[[5]]. If anything, MAriam83 discussed things way too much, and repeatedly referenced claims with authoritative sources: britannica, oxford, UN, Columbia, Stanford, not some "fringe" work. [unsigned comment made 15:07, 16 July 2007 71.156.120.219 (Talk)]
My reply of 00:17 17 July 2007
STOP all of you. I am not here to evaluate contributors. I'll evaluate contributions on their merits. Specifically, how much the contributions mesh with academic viewpoints and with generally accepted viewpoints on the subject matter. I will discuss this more on the article talk page. I may be fairly new at Wikipedia, but this isn't my first time walking into the middle of a dispute that's on the verge of degenerating into a chorus of "I'm right because my opponent is a loser." If anyone continues to disparage their opponent, if they are lucky I will ignore them. If they aren't, I'll count it against them.
This issue is first and foremost a content dispute. For those of you who have engaged in block-eligible behaviorwhether or not you have ever been blocked or even warned - and you should know who you are - stop. For those of you who haven't yet done so, don't start.Editors banned or blocked from that page but who are allowed to post here: I will be asking a series of questions on the article talk page. Since you can't answer there, you may answer them on my user talk page if you like. The more concise and less opinionated your answer the more likely I'll give it weight. This does not apply to editors blocked or banned from my user talk page or from all of Wikipedia.
Oh, one more thing: Please sign your posts, it saves me a lot of time. How hard is it to put ~~~~? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC). Updated davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for the barnstar! I appreciate it. :) --GrooveDog (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I uploaded the higher-res version as requested. Good thinking! As a note, I'm perfectly fine with the license you chose - it's your right to choose whatever as long as it's compatible with the original. Hersfold(talk/work) 17:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Hm. That's funny. Ok, I'll keep an eye on that. Just so you know, I've got a higher resolution version of your AFC barnstar if you want it. Hersfold(talk/work) 18:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
AFC Drive Rewards
Hey there.
Just to keep in mind, we are NOT going to give out the awards until the drive ends. This will make it much easier for me to keep track of at the end. I noticed that you had "awarded" them to Hersfold and Counterpart0. Thanks for your help, but don't give out the awards quite yet. GrooveDog (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Articles for creation
WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive News!
We are one week in to the drive, and it's already going fantastic. Numerous days of backlogs have been tackled, with hundreds of articles having been reviewed. We do, however, have some news!
First off, a HUGE congratulations to everyone participating so far. I understand some members are inactive due to vacation, but we are still making great progress.
Secondly, make sure that before you go off and review old submissions, that you review all submissions for the present day, and the day before, so that we aren't actually making a bigger backlog, by letting submissions get archived while we're checking stuff from 2006.
Third, remember to update your running total, on the drive page. Honesty is the best policy, so if you lie about the number of articles you've reviewed, we'll all make angry faces while looking at your userpage.
And, last, if you have any questions about the drive, feel free to ask me, or any other members of the project.
Great job, everyone! We're going to get that backlog!
GrooveDog.
Automatically delievered by HermesBot 08:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC) (Owner)
AFC Barnstar
Just noticed you're well over the 100 reviewed limit, so here is your barnstar. Many congratulations. Theone00 11:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
RE:AFC Backlog
Thanks for reminding me. I've actually made a few; I just forgot to update the count. Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 15:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know that! (about the 1,000 artical). Cheers for telling me. 08:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
most ancient common ancestor
Greetings,
I'm e-mailing you to let you know that I plan to try again with my article., Most ancient common ancestor. I realize that ideas such as the Earth is round often meet with popular resistance, but ultimately prove correct. It took Barbara McClintock some 30 years before experts realized that she was right. I find it grossly unfair that the article was deleted before I had a chance to comment on it. Perhaps more disturbing, however, is that those who voted for deletion did so after the article was gutted by Fred Hsu, who nominated it for deletion.
Let me say that there was also a misunderstanding. I realize that if we are talking intra-speciation, then our most ancient common ancestor might be a 'sponge.' But I was talking within-species. The idea is that, if humans evolved from multiple origins (as hypothesized in the multiregional hypothesis) and these later populations intermixed, then there would come a point in time when a first (or most ancient) common ancestor would emerge. Even if the idea is not totally right, to think that a single chimp-ancestor mutated into a 'human' in a single step is complete and utter bunk.Ryoung122 02:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. Davidwr, before you reply, please see what Ryoung122 wrote on my talk page. I hope he fixed the screwed-up text blocks he left. Fred Hsu 03:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Ryoung122, I strongly recommend you find a related article and expand it. Be sure cite heavily and avoid anything that sounds like original research, or it's likely to be tagged {{fact}} then reverted. If you write a similar article with the same topic, you will likely lose any resulting AFD and find the name salted or the page replaced with a protected redirect to prevent recreation. If you want a deletion review, you can request one. Deletion reviews are typically granted if there is a procedural issue. If you were away from Wikipedia during most of the AFD period, that might qualify. If you emailed me, the mail has not yet arrived. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I am dumbfounded by what Ryoung122 is producing. I wish I could watch his 'contributions' page. Check out Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Content_review. I can't believe he quoted what I just wrote on my talk page as supporting evidence for his now-deleted article. I am speechless. Fred Hsu 03:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Right. I mean: put that contributions page in my watch list... Fred Hsu 12:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is the argument here...I was away and did not have a chance to explain or argue my position; therefore I am requesting a 'deletion review'...either a restoration or a re-vote.Ryoung122 02:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
most ancient common ancestor part 2
I have started MORE THAN 54 articles and so far, only ONE has been deleted. I suppose that willow oak was a much less controversial topic than human origins, however.
I'm glad to see that Fred Hsu is dumbfounded, because people like that think they know everything, just like Saul thought persecuting Christians was the right thing to do. Later, he changed his mind. Perhaps Mr. Hsu needs to read Paul Baltes's work on wisdom. Intelligence isn't everything; being open-minded and able to consider other points of view are important. That doesn't mean that we should corrupt things the way that Time Magazine sells out to religion at Christmas time. That does mean that we don't know as much about the human genome or evolution or speciation as we think we know. The Linnean system of nomenclature has recently strained as it became increasingly apparent that it is, at best, an artificial model which imperfectly fits the reality of biology. For a more real assessment, I suggest reading this:
This is not an archive. The discussion is active. This discussion is collapsed due to sheer length.
Greetings,
Here I am again--because apparently some people prejudge without...
Greetings,
Here I am again--because apparently some people prejudge without having open minds. I find the below comments to be condescending, at best:
“
I concur. Please read Wikipedia:Good articles and Wikipedia:What is a good article?. Since your article is on a novel or not-widely-accepted scientific theory, creating a good article with plenty of easy to verify references mainly from secondary and tertiary sources will make it much harder to delete through AFD. If you do not have at least 3-4 independent, high-quality, well-respected secondary sources, and at least one primary source, then the article should not be written. If you cannot provide a reference any substantial statement in the article if asked to do so, then that particular statement should be removed. The bulk of the article should be supportable entirely by secondary sources. If you do not follow these instructions, the odds are any rewrite will spur an AFD, and it will likely fail. Personally, I ope you can write a good article on this subject. However, I looked for references and was unable to find more than 4. Of course, these do not include written material and most material in subscription databases. Books and printed articles that are not "novelty press" publications are perfectly valid resources. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
”
First off, articles do not begin as 'good articles'--they begin as 'stubs.' If the topic is significant enough, the material may be expanded and worked on to one day attain 'good article' status. Wow. Is that too hard to understand?
Second, Wikipedia's English version is fairly well-established now. Basic, gotta-have-it articles have all been started a long time ago. If you want to read about Pluto you can find out about the 'ex-planet' or the god or the cartoon character, no problem. Wikipedia is now in an infill stage where the only things left to add are either new information (i.e. future events haven't happened yet) or specialized ideas that the average Joe on the street wouldn't have any idea about to begin with. To me, you cannot judge an article's worth by the number of hits on Wikipedia...or even the number of hits, period. As it has been said, only 3 people read Barbara McClintock's paper about the genetics of corn in the first 20 years or so. But eventually the rest of science caught up to realize that, you know what, she was right after all. Remember when ulcers 'weren't caused by bacteria' or when the moon's craters were 'due to volcanism'? It took a while to overthrow old ideas. The pope got mad at Galileo and his 'heliocentric' ideas. But on further inspection, Galileo's ideas weren't 'original research,' they were just leading-edge ideas that had been out of vogue for a few millennia.
Third, an idea need not be 'correct' to warrant an article. We see articles about epicycles because it contributed to the history of thought regarding the movement of stars across the sky. Likewise, I am not so much an advocate of the 'multiregional' hypothesis as I am an advocate of not dismissing it based on smoke-and-mirrors data. It is clear that the 'mitochondrial Eve' idea was misrepresented in 'popular' science (i.e. National Geographic, which sacrifices facts in order to spin material to make it popular with the buying masses) and that, even some scientists misunderstood the concept. I was merely showing the many loopholes out there. And last I checked, this was a major website, not some 'novelty press':
Moreover, the researchers determined that the common ancestor to Neanderthals and modern Homo sapiens lived as long as 500,000 years ago, well before the most recent common mtDNA ancestor of modern humans. This suggests (though it does not prove) that Neanderthals went extinct without contributing to the gene pool of any modern humans.
There are many variables that can affect the mutation rate of mtDNA, including even the possibility that mtDNA is not always inherited strictly through maternal lines. In fact, recent studies show that paternal mtDNA can on rare occasions enter an egg during fertilization and alter the maternal mtDNA through recombination. Such recombination would drastically affect the mutation rate and throw off date estimates.
Not surprisingly, there is currently a heated debate over the value of "mitochondrial Eve" -- especially between history-hunting geneticists and some fossil-finding paleoanthropologists. According to these anthropologists, even if we could accurately gauge the age of the ancestor, that knowledge is meaningless because all she really is is the woman whose mtDNA did not die out due to random lineage extinctions. Furthermore, her status as the most recent common ancestor doesn't mean that she and her contemporaries were any different from their ancestors. (Remember, she and all of her contemporaries had their own mitochondrial Eve.)
In fact, I am not 'advocating' for one idea, I am merely expounding the many caveats and viewpoints of the topic. If humans began from multiple sources and later gene flow merged them into one species (as the multiregional hypothesis suggests), then there would be a 'most ancient common HUMAN ancestor'. Is that too hard to figure out? Just as an analogy, these two trees began growing from separate seeds, but at some point merged into one trunk:
Again, this may be an exception to the rule and defies common sense and logic concerning tree growth. But, it happened (legend has it the Indians tied two trees together as a symbol of peace).
The real points of my articles are to make contributions in areas that are still missing, especially where these may lead to new ways of thinking. Yet in coming up with an idea, often someone else thought of it before...it just may not have been put up into an article on Wikipedia yet. I find it quite amazing that Mr. Fred Hsu...who probably thinks he is so brilliant, but yet is too small-minded to consider that there is more than one way to view things...then admitted that much of what I was saying was already in Richard Dawkin's books. So I find it DISHONEST to nominate an article for deletion, claim original research, and then admit it wasn't original research after the fact.
As time goes on, I do become disappointed in humanity...mainly due to hypocrisy. Like that South Park episode, where the goth kids insisted a new member 'conform' to their gothic ways...scientists often critize people for thinking 'unscientifically,' then turn to emotions instead of logic in their assessments. Claiming from a sample of just 147 people to have identified the 'mitochondrial Eve' and to date her to '200,000 years ago' was almost a scientific hoax. When the true story came out...the estimates were from 50,000 to 500,000 years ago...the results meant very little. At least NOVA undestood and admitted one thing: pinpointing the 'mitochondrial Eve' and the "Y-chromosomal Adam" can tell us that humans most likely originated in Africa, but it cannot tell us when the first waves of human migration out of that continent succeeded. Did the pioneers in Israel 100,000 years ago contribute anything to our DNA? We don't know yet. Perhaps a test of their DNA and ours will tell. But not a statistical calculation that is a mere correlation to, but not a function of, human migration. Otherwise, we could argue that since the "most recent common ancestor" lived just 6,000 years ago, the Bible is true and Adam and Eve left the 'Garden of Eden' just six millenia ago. Why is it that scientists can see the illogic in connecting two unrelated things, yet they cannot see the illogic in inventing their own scientism religion, and making religious dates that cannot be disputed, even when the 'proof' is not proof, but just teleological arguments.
Now, I have written this because I am giving you the benefit of the doubt; you can think openly or you can be Fred Hsu's yes-man. The choice is yours.Ryoung122 02:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Editor's note: I added {{cquote| ... }} around your quotation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
To be worthy of Wikipedia, something must meet the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Lots of stuff here does NOT meet these needs. Articles that do not meet these needs are subject to revision or calls for deletion. The less controversial a topic, the more likely it will simply be ignored instead of edited or deleted. For matters of up-and-coming scientific ideas, Wikipedia generally tracks the prevailing world opinion with a slight lag. Before they meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, such ideas need to have noticeable publicity or be taken seriously by a noticeable minority of scientists. To meet the verifiability requirements, it must have sufficient secondary sources to prove that not only is the subject matter verifiable, but its notability is verifiable. Also, when dealing with a term that can be used in several different ways, it helps to have a clear-cut disambiguation page.
As for articles all starting as stubs: This is simply not true. Some items are so notable that a stub is better than no article. Other items are semi-notable and should not have an article at all until there is more than just a stub. For example, current mayors of medium-sized cities should not have an article at all unless their notability can be firmly established. This pretty much rules out stubs. However, every mayor in history of world cities like London, England should be listed, even if it is just a stub. The article that was recently AFDd needed to be more than a stub. It needed to be more than a start-class article. Before being posted it should have been drafted as a user sub-page as at least a B-class if not a Good Article, then moved or copied into the main space. This would have made it much more resistant to any AfD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
