Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:26, 21 March 2009

☺

Welcome to my talk page. Messages that are welcome here:

• politely-worded criticisms of my behaviour
• calmly-expressed differences of opinion
• questions about how to edit Misplaced Pages
• just saying hello or whatever
• etc.; I like getting that "you have new messages" banner.
• I hope my friends will tell me when they disagree with me or think I'm doing something wrong.

One way to leave a message here is to click on the "+" tab at the top of this page. Sometimes I reply here, sometimes on your talk page, etc.; feel free to let me know which you'd prefer.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Watchlist my Notices page

Users may wish to put my page User:Coppertwig/Notices on their watchlist. I plan to post notices there occasionally about my activities and about things that may be of interest to Wikipedians. I plan to try to edit it much less often than my talk page gets edited, so that it will be convenient for people to have it on their watchlists. I've just posted the first version of the page, with descriptions of things I've recently been involved in or plan to get involved in, from RfC to MfD. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on adminship at Simple!

Yep, muon-catalyzed fusion is real, though as always low energy depends on context. Next up - tauon catalyzed fusion - even better at lowering the Coulomb barrier if we could just get the tau leptons to stick around. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

<chuckle> Thanks, and thanks for showing that you've read my Notices page! I was wondering whether anybody had Noticed it yet! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

New project

Hi. :) Given the work you've done on copyrights, especially at SCV, I wanted to let you know that I am launching a new copyright cleanup project (went through the proposal process at the council). It's located at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. Of course, I'd love to recruit members from people with whom I've collaborated on copyright issues before. Please consider joining if you'd like to help out, even occasionally. But more urgently, I'm hoping to get feedback on the project page. I'm trying to be clear and comprehensive, but I know very well that I often write much too long. If you have time to take a look and happen to see anywhere that I've gone astray, please let me know. Thanks for any input you can offer. --Moonriddengirl 13:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look! I've added it to my watchlist and plan to participate! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I was, of course, hoping you would, as I know you'll be a valuable participant! I really hope it works out, as I believe it's very necessary. --Moonriddengirl 13:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm always delighted to get messages from you, and look forward to getting involved with the project. (Along with the numerous other things I'm involved in.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I know you're busy. :) I see you occasionally at various points of Misplaced Pages, but I was still kind of hoping you'd have time. :) Whatever you can offer would be appreciated. --Moonriddengirl 13:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

We'll see! I just signed up for potentially another major project here, too! g2g for now! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

←Nicely done! Thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl 18:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Feel free to partially revert or further modify, as almost all the changes are minor and there are few of them I would feel strongly about. You've done a very good job writing the page! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It all looked good to me. :) You've said it more succinctly, and I appreciate that. --Moonriddengirl 19:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Slightly. I tend to write lengthily too. That's one reason we get along. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Phimosis

Is the "some authors use the terms" really needed? It seems a bit redundant to me. Especially in the lead. If it has to be included, maybe it should go in the main article. Also "recommends" is a bit too tame. They are quite forceful about it (because it is damaging (creates scar tissue) and painful.) With "recommends" it makes it seem like the AAP are offering parents a choice. It is not just the AAP who state that it should not be forced back either. It is the majority view that it should not be forced back. There are other sources which say this. Tremello22 (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks for your note. It's a bit exasperating; I'm astonished he doesn't recognize that material has to actually reflect the sources, rather than his opinions. Jayjg 02:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's just a difference of opinion in how far you can go in paraphrasing/interpreting/summarizing. At one extreme, we could say that you can only quote the precise wording of the source. We don't usually go that far. At the other extreme, one reads something, gets the impression that it means something, and writes something that one feels has that meaning. (Here I begin to digress.) That was apparently what was done for example at psychokinesis when it said "Scientists contend that psychokinesis does not really exist...", which was not stated anywhere in the given source. (Talk:Psychokinesis/Archive 6#Scientists contend) If you read the source, you got a distinct impression that the source was generally dismissive of psychokinesis, but it was very hard to pin it down: you couldn't take any one quote that would support that idea well. To state that the source was dismissive of psychokinesis would be to report the evaluation or interpretation of a Wikipedian, which we don't do.

That article now says "There is no convincing scientific evidence that psychokinesis exists," a statement I'm reasonably satisfied with. As a scientist I was offended by the "scientists contend" statement since I feel that scientists don't usually make definitive statements like that, as scientists, about things that can't be proven; if it had been shown that a significant number of scientists did support such a statement, fine, but that was not demonstrated. A source is quoted in a footnote as saying "ost scientists, both psychologists and physicists, agree that it has yet to be convincingly demonstrated." This sounds like a very reasonable statement. As a scientist I care about the difference between that statement, and "Scientists contend that psychokinesis does not really exist": they are not the same thing, and the latter statement has not (yet) been shown to be verifiable: likely because other scientists see the same distinction and don't tend to make such a statement in their professional capacity. You have to be careful about things like this to get your math right and to be able to do things like figure out a solution to the EPR paradox, as John Stewart Bell did. (end digression.)

Those who tend to stray further afield when paraphrasing than is accepted by most Wikipedians need to adjust their practice to conform to WP:CONSENSUS and compromise and to become more encyclopedic and precise. I made this adjustment myself during my time at Misplaced Pages: it's necessary in order to arrive at consensus with editors who have different POVs. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good points. And thanks for your note about the FAC, and your thorough proof-read of it, they were much appreciated! Jayjg 01:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure! It's a very nice article! For some odd reason I enjoy proofreading; could be part of why I'm a Wikipedian! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Tremello22

Hi Coppertwig. Re this note to Tremello22's talk, I just wanted to be sure that you were aware that Tremello is now User:Outliner09. Jakew (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hah! I'm one minute ahead of you! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Damn! I shall have to slink away in shame now. Jakew (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you make it very difficult for anyone trying to criticize you. We have to take our opportunities to be the one who's right, when we can. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have asked a question at the help desk but no help was given

At User talk:Moonriddengirl, you said "Feel free to ask me if you ever have questions about how Misplaced Pages works, etc.", therefore, I am asking a question here since I didn't get any help at the help desk. My question is at: Misplaced Pages talk:Special:LongPages#All namespaces. -- IRP ☎ 20:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know about Special:LongPages. Come to think of it, I really ought to archive my talk page.

There are a couple of possible reasons why you didn't get an answer. One possible reason is that maybe there is no way to get such a list. In that case, most people probably thought "well, I don't know of a way, but someone else might", so they didn't answer. Another possible reason is that people had to follow a link to get to your question. Stating the question as clearly as possible may also help. Is Special:LongPages only mainspace pages? How do you know that? How do you know that the userpage you mentioned was purposely, as opposed to accidentally, made long in order to crash browsers? I would phrase the question something like this: "Is there any way to get a list of the longest pages in all namespaces, the way Special:LongPages does for mainspace? It would make it easier to find vandalism such as User:Shaun F/bla, which was a very long page that was made to crash browsers." I suggest waiting until your question is archived from the Help Desk page, then posting your question to WP:Village Pump (technical), putting the actual question on the Village Pump page so people don't have to follow a link. If you want to make sure discussion takes place in only one place, you can put a note at Misplaced Pages talk:Special:LongPages with a link to the Village Pump discussion, although since the latter page is rarely edited I'm not sure that's necessary. If you do get an answer it would be good to put the answer, or a link to it, at Misplaced Pages talk:Special:LongPages for the benefit of others. If nobody gives you an answer at Village Pump (technical), you could either give up (figuring there probably is no such way), or if you think it's worthwhile, try to get someone to write a bot or program (perhaps using a dump of Misplaced Pages) or something to do it, or put in a request at Misplaced Pages:Bugzilla for the feature to be added. If you put in a Bugzilla request, if you're not experienced at filing bug reports it's probably a good idea to get help first from the people at Village Pump (technical), or from some random computer geek, or possibly from me though I'm kindof a beginner at it, on how to word the Bugzilla request. Thanks for helping Misplaced Pages by checking into this. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. -- IRP ☎ 22:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome.

(edit conflict; replying to deleted message re AES arrow) I had to follow the links to figure out what you meant, but that sounds like a good idea. However, I'm not an administrator, and anyway making that sort of change would require consensus. I suggest you discuss it with other editors at MediaWiki talk:Revertpage, and if you get consensus, then use an {{editprotected}} template to request that an administrator do it. I suggest that if you suggest it on that talk page and no one replies for about 3 days, then in my opinion it would then be reasonable to request it with the editprotected template. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)