Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mathezar (talk | contribs) at 08:14, 8 March 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

¡Oh Gloria Inmarcesible!

Hola, yo traduje los versos III a XI del himno nacional. Gracias por tus comentarios. Creo que tienes toda la razón en lo de las termópilas y ya lo cambié. Respecto a lo de la flor, no estoy segura...cuando se dice, "la flor estremecida mortal el viento hallando," el adjetivo "mortal" debe referirse al viento, no a la flor, sino se diría, "la flor estremecida mortalmente". Además el verbo "hallando" tiene que referirse a cómo halla la flor al viento, y la única posibilidad es mortal (por ello la flor busca refugio). Adiós, Rosa 19:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Souder Report included in Wiki article

Yopienso, I thought you might be interested to know that I think that I will be able to get the McDiarmid quote from the Souder report included in the Richard Sternberg article. Then I will take the debate back to the Expelled discussion page. Some editor tried to use an article from Scientific American to "prove" that the report was unreliable. But failed to read the entire article which stated that the quotes and appendix of the Souder report ARE reliable.

Anyway, I think I have won this round. I expect that when the Sternberg page is corrected all heck will break loose when I move the discussion back to Expelled. Thanks for your advice and pray for me as this debate heats up, as I know it will.

God bless, Math Mathezar (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

al propósito...

Welcome!

Hello, Yopienso, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Este es el formato normal de bienvenida que está en inglés y es de mucha ayuda cuando uno recién comienza a conocer Misplaced Pages.
Muchas gracias por escribir tus comentarios en el discussion page antes de editar el artículo. Aunque en principio en Misplaced Pages se permite editar con libertad, cuando no se está seguro es mejor discutir primero en el discussion(talk) page del artículo. De nuevo bienvenida (o bienvenido, no se jeje)  Rosa 19:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Mace of the United States House of Representatives

Yopienso, I have not edited that article. I tagged the article's Talk Page as part of WikiProject Congress, but have not edited the article itself. I will work to revise it, but had nothing to do with it other than that. If you look at my edits from the last six months, you will find them well researched and cited. The plagerism comment on my talk page comes from an edit I made when I first joined Misplaced Pages over a year ago and didn't quite 'get it'. As for being a person of reknown, I assure you I am not. Thanks--Daysleeper47 13:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wagar

Yopienso, I've identified the"Wagar" referred to on the By the Waters of Babylon page. Rojomoke (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR and SYN

Hi, you've been here for quite a while so I'm sure you'll know that our WP:3RR policy prohibits edit warring at Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed or any other article: good that you're talking the issues over. I've left quite a long comment at the section you raised at Editor assistance to try to explain the issues – the extended quote you propose presents a novel synthesis, in breach of WP:SYN, which had not been published in a reliable secondary source as required by WP:PSTS. It's a good idea to become familiar with the whole WP:NOR policy, or at least read it through when in doubt. Rather large and complex, but there for good reasons. Hope that helps, dave souza, talk 09:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave--I've answered you on your talk page. I learned the ropes once, but have forgotten many of the ins and outs, for which I apologize. Yopienso (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Yopienso. I've been following the Darwin quote issue, and I think it comes down to a small misunderstanding. The issue isn't whether or not you're right or wrong (and yes, obviously there is more to Darwin's original quotation than reported by Scientific American), but the issue -is- what we can and cannot include in the article. For that particular section, the main reference is the sciam article, and because scientific american didn't include the entire quotation, we cannot, either. To do so would be putting words in Scientific American's mouth.

My personal feeling is that SciAm made an editorial decision when choosing the length of Darwin's quotation, for any of a number of reasons, possibly even just to save space in their article. While context is important, editors often have to make these choices. Why stop at the paragraph? Why not quote the entire chapter or book?

SciAm might have made an error in cutting off the quotation where they did (though, in my opinion, Expelled was worse...they chopped up entire paragraphs and sentences, leaving out key words and phrases that completely changed the meaning of what was said, even to a casual reader), but that's not for Misplaced Pages to decide. SciAm is the source, we have to report what the sources say. I'm sure that if you could find a better source for that section of the article that could be cited, there wouldn't be an objection to modifying the article.

I hope this helps...Quietmarc (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on my talk page, Yopienso, I've replied there at length to keep the conversation together. Agree with Quietmarc, the sources may not be ideal but we have to be careful not to misrepresent them or go beyond them, and a minor creationist film is unlikely to attract many peer reviewed studies. . . dave souza, talk 19:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Dave--Nope, no edit warring from me.

Marc--Hello! Thanks for chiming in. You wrote, "For that particular section, the main reference is the sciam article, and because scientific american didn't include the entire quotation, we cannot, either." When I came across the article, it already had the two references that are still there, footnotes #'s 75, to the SciAm article, and 76, to the text of Darwin's The Descent of Man. I would not want to misrepresent SciAm, but I object to their misrepresenting Darwin. As Nerdseeksblonde said, if we can't complete the quote SciAm mined from the original, we should just drop it. But I think if I delete it, Dave will restore it. No point in that. That's why I'm going to try to go up a level. I still cannot for the life or me understand why a primary source is banned, unless maintaining political correctness is a greater goal than accuracy and truth. For example, in the Wiki article on George Washington, footnote #32 leads to Washington's original writing, not to a book or magazine or newspaper. That's all I'm requesting.

Is the difference between the Expelled... article in Wiki and the one in George Washington that one is a movie review? No, can't be--the reviews of Mary Poppins and Secondhand Lions, for two examples of Wiki reviews, are not so carefully footnoted. This is what leads me to the conclusion that it is to protect Darwin's legacy at the expense of suppressing what he wrote. Just take a look at Dave's talk page to see what a champion of Darwin and opponent of creationists he is.

Please show me where I'm mistaken if I am. Yopienso (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey again, Yopienso. I'm definitely not an expert on wiki policy, so I'll be following the mediation (or however this discussion continues). I still think that the quotation is fine as is, but the reason gets more subtle. If the article was on Darwin, or Darwin's views, then I would be siding with you, but the article in question is on a film, and this section is specifically about what the film says about Darwin and eugenics, and how the experts respond to the film's claims. Because Darwin couldn't have responded to the film (he's dead), we can't use his words. We have to use an expert's interpretation of his words.

It's a -very- small leap to guess what Darwin might have thought about eugenics given his entire passage, but in this case it is a leap, and that's where the OR and SYNTH comments come from. You're making an assumption (albeit one that's very natural to make), and on wikipedia, in this case, we can't let that assumption in. We have to use the assumptions and responses of experts, even if their perspectives are incomplete.

I really don't think that Dave et al are trying to "protect" evolution or obfuscate the issue, I think that they're trying to uphold a subtle piece of NPOV. But again, I'll be watching to see how the discussion goes....Quietmarc (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Out for a few days...

Hi - just to let you know I'm off for the weekend (it's Friday night here) so I won't be around to carry on the mediation until my Monday morning (Australia time).

I can certainly see both sides of the issue at the moment. I think you have a very strong point in that it is clear that SciAm misquoted Darwin in order to accuse Stein of misquoting Darwin.

However I also see the argument that anything we do that even hints at making that observation could be deemed as a violation of WP:NOR, and that could easily include extending the quote beyond what SciAm used. You are also basically at risk of appearing to comment on the SciAm article instead of the documentary, (this is why I asked about the "direct relationship" issue).

Of course mediation has yet to continue and I stress that I have NO authority whatsoever to "judge" the issue. I'm just speculating on how things might pan out, based on my years of policy experience. I don't think anyone is trying to bias the article in any direction.

I'd also advise you to avoid EVER using the phrase "common sense". Although I know exactly what you mean, this phrase has a charged meaning in Wikiland. Everything on Misplaced Pages now gets done in terms of policy, basically because no-one can agree on what constitutes "common sense".

While I am away, please look for a secondary source (eg. a different article) that illustrates this selective quoting by SciAm in the context of the film. If you can find one then this entire dispute will automatically disappear. (The web comment you found doesn't count, unfortunately).

Talk on Monday, Manning (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up as well as for your ear and advice.

Odd--official Wiki policy requires using common sense. I've edited my comment to show that. It seems the letter of the law here is violating the spirit of the law--obviously the intention of the policy is to prevent cranks from blathering on about all kinds of nonsense, or, conversely, hopeful writers from trying the public waters at Wiki first. I realize policy develops as situations are encountered and this clause may be obsolete. Too bad; it seems designed specifically for cases like this one, where I'm not making anything up but just want the whole context given. I think the very fact that people objected to including the last sentence reveals a bias they hold: Never allow anything--not even his own words--that could possibly be construed as casting Our Exalted Darwin in a poor light.

Policy can never cover every situation; therefore common sense is required. That's why we have the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution--no amount of legal logorrhea can ever cover every contingency. (Oh--you're Australian--they just basically say, "We couldn't list all the people's rights, and whatever we didn't take from them is still theirs even though it's not down on paper.")

I can't understand why I have to find a reliable article that comments on the biased SciAm article. Of course I won't find one. Who goes around writing things like that? I've never caught, for example, USN&WR second-guessing somebody else's article. Why not just ignore that article and compare Stein's quote to Darwin's original? There's no synthesis there--it would go, "Stein said blah-blah-blah. Darwin's actual text reads blah-blah-blah." I don't see how insisting on saying, "Smith says Darwin said" makes for a better encyclopedia than simply, "Darwin said." In fact, this whole process has taught me Wiki isn't half the encyclopedia I thought it was. Encyclopedia Britannica hires knowledgeable people to write accurate stories. During this process I've discovered Jimmy Wales actually said he doesn't care what the truth is; all he cares about is that his policy is followed. It's his site and he can make whatever rules he wants, but now that I know them I respect the work far less. At least I am fair warned and will be alert in the future when I consult it on any subject that has any PC issues: do not trust.

Just to check how correct my conclusions were, I very appropriately added some information to the article on Richard Sternberg. Shot right down. I'm not going to argue with the PC boys over there. Finding websites that contradict each other has been frustrating. I have given up knowing the truth about the Smithsonian-Sternberg controversy. Somebody or everybody is lying and I have no way of knowing who. Certainly have to take Wiki's PC stance with a grain of salt. Nobody cares that the Mary Poppins article is poorly sourced, nobody cares that an article I wrote on the Caqueta River is unsourced. No, there's an agenda here: allow all kinds of shoddy work, but strictly keep the PC gate.

I do appreciate all the excellent editing people such as yourself do, all the effort to bring order out of chaos, to revert vandalism and weed out cranks and take time to listen to honest but perplexed people, to say nothing of writing and correcting.

I will be very busy the next couple of days in preparation for a short trip Sunday and Monday, and may just have to drop this, which might be a mercy. I had originally planned to appeal all the way up the line to the very top but, honestly, I've lost my faith in Wiki and am losing the heart for trying to make sense of it all.Yopienso (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

PS It's 2:15 in the morning here and I'm drained and discouraged, feel like I've wasted days of my time. If later I regret being so morose I'll apologize. Have a great weekend!

Hi

Hi Yopienso, I only know about you because I copy edit Dave souza's article, such as History of evolutionary thought, Fertilisation of Orchids, The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs, On the Origin of Species. I completely understand feeling morose. Don't lose heart! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi from me too, a clarification: History of evolutionary thought and On the Origin of Species are articles by Rusty Cashman, I've helped out a bit with these, particularly the latter one. Thanks for removing your remarks about Shoemaker's Holiday, my feeling was that it was worth going ahead with mediation without bringing him into the argument but his views will still have to be taken into account, however bluntly they've been put in the past. As for the issue of using primary sources, our aim here has to be to use secondary sources for any interpretation or selection to avoid introducing our own interpretation. This is the opposite of good scholarly practice for historians, but makes sense where editing is open to everyone and we can't check expert credentials. Some use of primary sources to back up secondary sources is welcomed, but of course it's a bit of a judgement call. Not always easy, as I've been reminded! . . dave souza, talk 19:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Yopienso...I've been eavesdropping on the talk pages of Dave and Mattisse regarding the mediation, and have noticed that you seem somewhat deflated by how it's progressed. I'm hoping that we can continue this, as I'm fairly new at being active on wikipedia (long-time lurker), and this is one of my first opportunities to see how mediation works from beginning to end. From what I've seen, this is an ideal situation, where the editors involved are assuming good faith and are willing to devote their time to resolving this.

To digress a bit, I ended up "defending" wikipedia to my dentist this morning when he mentioned how the pages change every day. What I told him was that at least these articles are sourced transparently, but what I could have elaborated on (had his hands not been in my mouth) was that for every article, the development is completely transparent: the discussion about this relatively obscure point on a relatively obscure article is recorded...any user can read the Expelled article and, if he cares to, follow the discussion about Darwin's full quote, the SciAm article, and the questions of what those editing choices mean.

On many (evolution) articles, many of the discussion page comments are more about ideology than about improving the article, so it's refreshing to see people engaged in a sincere attempt to grapple with wiki policy and to make the encyclopedia better. This is not to say that I'll agree with you, but I've appreciated your honest attempts to follow through with this issue, and I hope you are able to find the motivation to continue. Quietmarc (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

. Bazj (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

and again...

. Bazj (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've created a talk page for that user--wonder if he'll ever see it.  ???

I've never done a Talkback; crossing my fingers to do it right. Yopienso (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Latin America HDI

Hello there. Thank's for your help to translate the Spanish text. How do you can see English and Spanish aren't my primary language. I think that the editors should make a decision in this article. I already post a source saying what we can't make this list, but the user Prodigynet are very authoritarian and always undo my changes and he even tried to block me. I suspect that him has other accounts, like TownDown and now PuebloUnited. If it's true, it goes against the rules of Misplaced Pages. Why don't you review the page or ask to editors to review? Thank's very much.--Italodal (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit

Copy edit means I go through the article to make sure it is well written, with no grammar or wording errors. I am usually not the content expert. I did not know there was a mediation over evolution. I do know from experience that mediation can be very difficult and draining. I was interested in you because I thought, perhaps, you are fluent in Spanish. Also, you have such a wonderful way of expressing yourself. I wish I could copy it! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

February 2010

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Thank you. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 15:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I must respectfully yet emphatically disagree with you. As I said, I spent many hours working with a number of editors on this. I will not get into an edit war with you, a PC gatekeeper, nor a discussion here, as we both know what I said yesterday is true. If you want some history on my hours of work and good faith attempts, see archive 11 on the EE article and this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-07-07/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

Dave Souza I have found to be a respectful person. He and I are of different persuasions, but able to communicate intelligently and politely. He has integrity and follows the rules by his lights, as I do. Several other editors exhibited the same good character; a few did not.

Misplaced Pages is definitely PC and does have a strong controlling bias. As I said in the helpful comment you removed, once a user recognizes the bias, Wiki is doubly useful.

Happy Valentine's Day! Yopienso (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop referring to Misplaced Pages as "wiki". "Wiki" is either a Hawaiian word meaning "quick" or a type of software. Misplaced Pages is a wiki. It would be like me referring to you, randomly, as "editor" and expecting everyone to know I meant you, specifically. Its nonsense. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 18:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)