Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:02, 15 November 2013

Template:Archive box collapsible

"Misplaced Pages's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem." --WP:TIGER

Only 993061760 articles left until our billionth article!

We are only 993061760 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th article... --Guy Macon

New Discussion Thread

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.

Start a new discussion thread

Quotable quote

"... anyone who volunteers at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard can never be a clerk, administrator, or any other office that involves an election -- those who are unhappy with the result at DRN have a tendency to hold a grudge" -- Guy Macon

I think that merits a spot on your User page. Kudos. --Lexein (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Negative Power Factor

After a long period of silence, Wtshymanski is back at Talk:Power factor and has picked up the stick again on his IEEE spec that conrtradicts itself . You threatened to take action if he did, so now is your big chance. I B Wright (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski should be treated like anyone else who has a WP:FRINGE pseudoscientific theory that he cannot let go of. Please be very careful not to treat him worse than an adamant believer in perpetual motion or phrenology would be treated. His penultimate comment was on 24 August 2013‎, at which time several editors advised him to drop the WP:STICK. He dropped it until today (14 November 2013) at which point he posted a grand total of sixteen words. That's so far from being disruptive that I would give him a barnstar if not for the fact that in the past he has assumed that my honest attempts to tell him he did something right were sarcasm.

Meanwhile, Wtshymanski has been doing some fine work on articles where his fringe engineering theories don't interfere. Look at these edits for example, comparing the page before and after Wtshymanski edited it. That was some very good work. Now look at these edits to another page; again, a real improvement.

I am watching for any resumption of the former disruptive behavior, but one talk comment every month or two is not disruptive. The goal here is to encourage Wtshymanski's productive editing while discouraging him from getting into raging battles in those areas where his theories go against the scientific consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I cannot argue that Wtshymanski does make positive contribution to Misplaced Pages when he puts his mind to it. This edit is a good example where an article was turned from a rather childish description of the action of an inductor into a much more engineering like description - a substantial improvement. However the edit betrayed one characteristic that Wtshymanski has shown on quite a few occasions. His description of what the inductor does was what a number of editors were trying to get into the article at Inductance. However, Wtshymanski was determined that that was not what inductance was and he wanted a totally different description (describing a solenoid). I have accumulated a few examples of where he argues a point one way at one talk page and then attempts to argue the exact opposite at another (and in one case: in the same talk page but at different sub discussions). I cannot help but form the opinion that where Wtshymanski appears to show an ignorance of some of the most basic engineering principles, the reality is, that he is merely adopting the argument that he does for no purpose other than to facilitate an edit war and a potentially lengthy discussion (if indeed he discusses at all). I find it hard to believe that an engineer at his level really does not understand the basics to the extent that he appears not to.

I was hoping to add details of these examples to the evidence gathering page for a potential future RfC. However, I cannot find it or a suitable link. I was fairly certain that this was being collated by DieSwartzPunkt, but that does not seem to be the case. Can you please remind me of where this is located? -I B Wright (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe that he deleted it. Of course there is the first RFC/U (Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski). Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance for guidance. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey

About the user, IRC/Email discussion, I know I was supposed to go there, just had to keep this on record. Hope you're well. If you're interested you may read the rest of the comments etc.. AN/I been filled, but I think will create more drama, I am just letting it go, and ANI, ^Darkwind^ said let it go, and I will. Danger^Mouse (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I see you are listed as volunteer on dispute resolution page & wonder if I can ask your neutral opinion and perhaps assistance.

My concern is with the article Wolf attacks on humans. The article's many current sources exhibit what I believe is a very wide range of reliability; however the article makes no distinction among sources in this regard.

My first suggestion was to limited sources to legitimate scientific articles, of which there are several excellent examples already cited. This remains my preference, but is probably too much to expect.

Recently I've focused on one source, which accounts for a significant number of citations; a book by Will N. Graves concerning wolves in Russia. I've discovered that an appendix included in the federal Environmental Impact Statement regarding Yellowstone wolf reintroduction, consists of a letter from two members of the Russian Academy of Science, responding to objections raised by Graves. They trash his "research" (for reasons that seem obvious and clearly applicable to his book) and advise the panel of American scientists to ignore his objections (which they did).

Graves (not a scientist) recently gave a lecture to the "Property Rights Foundation of America." Other guest speakers have included an astrologist, as well as activists on the far right.

I probably can't oppose any particular published source. Perhaps the article can somehow prioritize its sources according to standard measures of credibility. Basically I've hit a wall with that too. One of the more active editors has said "scientists suppress information about wolves" and so, I gather, are unreliable. Another deletes my comments on the talk page.

Probably, I should just go away. What would you suggest?

76.250.61.95 (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)