- 1 Ironclad
- 2 Guillotine
- 3 Narrowband Medival Crossbow Question
- 4 Time travel in fiction
- 5 Anselm Medeival Crossbow Page Discussion
- 5.1 Arbitration on Anselm
- 5.2 Vandalism Medeval Crossbow of Anselm Page: Contemporary Issues
- 5.3 3RR on Anselm of Canterbury
- 6 new project
- 7 Hyperspace Work
- 8 Posthuman Mediveal Crossbow Medieal Crossbow (Human evolution)
- 9 Thanks
- 10 AIV vs VIP
- 11 Edit conflict at Time travel
- 12 User Meideval Crossbow notice: temporary 3RR block for Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
- 13 3RR vio block
- 14 Question
- 15 What happened to Galactus in Fermi Paradox?!
- 16 Gunpowder
- 17 Fermi Paradox
- 18 You said
- 19 Oops.
- 20 Saracen crossbow
- 21 Ironclad
- 22 medieval crossbow bolts for warfare heavier than arrows
- 23 cavalry tactics
- 24 Black rat
- 25 ballista
- 26 Saracen crossbow
- 27 Hernando Cortez
- 28 (un)Wikified Dates
- 29 McCarthy
- 30 Don't remove referenced material
- 31 Trade union
- 32 Film noir
- 33 3RR on Joseph McCarthy
- 34 CSICOP
- 35 Gunpowder
- 36 military history coordinator
- 37 Crossbow
- 38 Your work and infinite patience is appreciated
- 39 3rr on Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
- 40 Hollywood blacklist
- 41 Pop culture
- 42 Logic and Loch Ness
- 43 FYI
- 44 Arbitration
- 45 Tad more than twice
- 46 Your McCarthy revisionism
- 47 J. Edgar Hoover
- 48 Area bombardment
- 49 Tet
- 50 Second Red Scare and McCarthy
- 51 Retrocausality
- 52 sockpuppets
- 53 Philip J. Klass
- 54 hoover rewrite
- 55 Arrant?
- 56 Warning
- 57 UH...
- 58 Ironclad
Thank you for your awesome contribution to the Ironclad article. Deiaemeth 05:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Im not really sure why you reported me for making unauthorized edits on the entry for Guillotine. All I did was remove several gibberish statements someone else had entered. These included statements like "The Guillotine was invented by the POPO to execute black people" and "Jamaicans have boobs". Keep up the good work... nick
- Sorry! My mistake. See my revert and apology on your talk page. KarlBunker 15:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it that the Arecibo message was a narrow band frequency - or a focused radio beam at a particular target - i.e. energy not dissapated omnidirectionally, but focused at a specific target? The two terms are not the same. - Beowulf314159 02:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Then your whole edit to the Arecibo message section should be reverted. Narrow band is narrow FREQUENCY band, not narrow focus! This either has to be changed, or reverted. - Beowulf314159 03:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- SETI's detection figures are for POWER levels. They have nothing to do with frequency spread - Beowulf314159 03:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok - is the detectability table linked to that? The range figures. As well, the way it's currently worded, it sounds like narrow band is WAY more important - but hold on, I'll reread both your section and the SETI FAQ - Beowulf314159 04:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Time travel in fiction
Some time ago, I created this separate main article off of time travel so the main article could be on the physics of whether this is even possible, and various theories, while information about movies, games, science fiction etc. could be in a separate article. Since then, lots of people ahve been adding stuff to the time travel article that really belongs in the time trravel in fiction article. User:AlMac|(talk) 02:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Anselm Page Discussion
I have posted an important topic for discussion on the Anselm page, and ask your contribution --Br Alexis Bugnolo 23:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Karl; have posted my reply, and have readded the historical references, mutatis mutandis.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 12:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Karl, you went ahead and added your version of the Dilecto Dilectori section. There is no consensus on your version. So I am removing it.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 23:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, let us take it to a higher level, if that is what you want; stil I am removing the section, pending arbitration, because you have agreed that you do not claim a squatter's right--Br Alexis Bugnolo 23:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Arbitration on Anselm
I have asked Richard to call for an arbiter. And, since I am already in direct communication with the Board of Directors of Wikipedia on the subject of this Article, which they have been monitoriing, I have also voiced my complaints about your action, too, to them.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 00:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism of Anselm Page: Contemporary Issues
Your repeated erasure of the Contemporary Issue section is vandalism. Please stop.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 02:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- 1. Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Br Alexis Bugnolo 02:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- 2. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have violated the 3RR rule by a couple of times.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 02:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- 3. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Br Alexis Bugnolo 02:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
3RR on Anselm of Canterbury
- I have blocked both you and Br Alexis Bugnolo for 24 hours for a 3RR on Anselm. please discuss issues on the talk page instead of a revert war. Details on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Based on some of your edits that I've seen, I think you might be interested in this new project Wikipedia:Wikiproject Rational Skepticism. Bubba73 (talk), 20:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you are working on the Hyperspace article. I am too, and trying to get it up to featured standard (considering nominating for collaboration!). Check out the plans on my userpage and try to contribute towards them.
Posthuman (Human evolution)
"Posthuman" does not denote just anything that happens to come after the human era, nor does it have anything to do with the "posthumous". In particular, it does not imply that there are no humans anymore. A posthumanist, on the other hand, is simply someone who advocates posthumanism.
Karl, you keep removing this sentence from the Posthuman article but I have and will continue readding it because I think it is useful information to counter the confusion many people have regarding the terms 'posthuman', 'poshumanist' and 'posthumanism'. --Loremaster 16:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The wording you put in for the The Wicker Man article is ideal; I was toying with various ways of saying what the character was like, but in the end your wording was the best. Thanks a lot for the help. Batmanand | Talk 12:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
AIV vs VIP
Hi KarlBunker. I noticed you added an entry to Vandalism in Progress. That page is only for very specific cases, as described by the page's guidelines. Your alert would be better placed on Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV), where it will usually be processed within minutes. Many alerts that are incorrectly placed on Vandalism in Progress are never dealt with, simply because they become old before an administrator gets to them. Thanks for your efforts. :) --lightdarkness (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Edit conflict at Time travel
I was amused to discover that I was trying to remove the link to the vanity article at the same time you were removing the link to the stupid vanity article. That IP may be one to keep an eye on: he's very good at inserting mention of himself, his invention, and his self-published book into articles. I just removed the book from the reference section at Wormhole. Joyous | Talk 22:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
User notice: temporary 3RR block for Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours William M. Connolley 20:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
3RR vio block
You have been blocked for 3RR violation on Dinosaur. Vsmith 02:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- My response:
- 1st revert
- 2nd revert
- 3rd revert
- 4th revert??
- On the 4th instance, a new editor had entered the exchange, and the edits of this section were no longer in a "yes it is/no it isn't" mode. The new editor ( user:Vsmith, also the administrator who blocked me) posted a version of the section that was close to what I and several other editors had been arguing for. My edit at that point was a response to Vsmith's edit, and was in the nature of "okay, but what about putting back this one item of the 3 you deemed inappropriate to the article?" I did not revert the article to the form I was advocating in my first 3 reverts; I was accepting the bulk of Vsmith's changes. Thus it was not a revert either in fact or in spirit; it was not a "yes it is/no it isn't" edit war; it was intended as part of an ongoing discussion.
- You were in a revert war with 3 reverts. I blocked your warring opponent who had exceeded 3. I then edited in a compromise version, which left out some of your preferred content. You reverted part of that content back in - still apparantly in edit war mode (your opponent was blocked). I considered that edit a distinct revert and blocked you for that 4th revert, I know it wasn't a total revert as I had already included much of the disputed material. Part of my reasoning also was your recent two 3rr blocks, you need to think it over and not engage in fruitless revert wars. Vsmith 00:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, if that's how you choose to interpret the events then I accept that (not that I have much choice :-) ). For what it's worth (not much, I expect), I didn't consider this a fruitless edit war; I was deliberately and dispassionately burning through the other guy's 3 allowed reverts so that we wouldn't have to put up with him for a day at least. I only went over the limit myself because I didn't consider that last edit to be a revert. Oh well; live & learn. KarlBunker 00:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Karl, why didn't you let your consensus revert for you? Kilgore Sprout 00:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yep; I should have. Live & learn, like I said. KarlBunker 00:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
In the Dinosaur article, you reverted my edit with the comment "section titles aren't supposed to be links, per WP:MOS". I understand the Wikipedia guideline but fail to see how it applies here. Could you explain what you meant? Thanks. –Shoaler (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Agh, my mistake. Looking at the history difference, I managed to totally misread the nature of your edit. I've put your edit back. KarlBunker 13:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
What happened to Galactus in Fermi Paradox?!
- Hey - we can talk about God creating a massive, useless, empty universe on a whim, the possibility of Vulcans keeping us in a cosmic zoo, and secret messages encoded in drugs occuring in cactus plants, but we can't have a giant world-eating superbeings gobbling up civilized worlds as a tasty snack?
</tongue-in-cheek> - Vedexent 10:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'll go along with putting the Galactus reference back, but only if we include a picture of his (one-time?) sidekick Nova. (Wotta babe!) KarlBunker 11:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
You mean her? I don't know, I kind of of prefer women... you know... not on fire. - Vedexent 13:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, what the heck is that about? I imagine it's the same guy as as the anon trying for another angle -- maybe put up a WFCU for User:Eiorgiomugini and User:220.127.116.11 (who, incidentally, put up a WP:RfAr against me, giving me the wonderful label "monster admin".) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Gunpowder. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Gunpowder). Sceptre (Talk) 10:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hey Sceptre, your template thingy didn't resolve, so I can't read it. I know the gist of it: I'm an idiot who gets into edit wars, but still, I'm curious. KarlBunker 10:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Here, I fixed it -- he left out a dash. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, much better. :-) KarlBunker 19:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Your comments to User:Eiorgiomugini are verging on personal attacks, if they haven't crossed it already. Argue the facts, not the personalities. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- If I ever make the mistake of addressing any comment whatsoever to User:Eiorgiomugini, please shoot me. With gunpowder. KarlBunker 16:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm trying to rope people back into working on Fermi Paradox. It was de-featured today but I'm hoping this a speedbump rather than a permanent change. Any comments on the talk page would be much appreciated. Cheers, Marskell 07:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, between you and Marskell, you seem to have a pretty good idea of how you want the article to look. I think your italicized blockquote (which is not actually a quotation) is inconsistent with the manual of style, as well as the sentence-length section titles. Kaisershatner 19:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Another thing, incidentally. You reverted all of my changes to the version previous to my edits, but your edit summary says only "I disagree with them." How about some specifics? I consider it poor etiquette to erase all of my work without at least stating some rationale more than you like it your way better. I like it my way better - where does that leave us? Of course, I like it my way better because the section titles are more concise and because there's no reason to offset a paragraph of text in italics that isn't a quotation of something. What are your reasons? Kaisershatner 19:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Last point on this. You might find it helpful to read this: WP:REVERT#Explain_reverts. Certainly one reason I'm amped about this is the total lack of feedback from you. Kaisershatner 19:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- So, what do you think? Ready to be an FA again? Marskell 16:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- I certainly think it's good enough, but you never know what objections/criticisms someone will come up with. KarlBunker 18:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
"RV; added emphasis adds too much POV"
What do you mean? the words are the same as is the meaning. The fact that he claimed as opposed to claimed -- how is that POV? There are places where emphasiss is appropriate. -- Jason Palpatine 03:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, adding emphasis has to change some gradation of meaning. It's not on a level with calling McCarthy a liar outright, but it seems obvious to me that the purpose in emphasizing "claimed" is to call attention to the fact that a "claim" is something that might be false. KarlBunker 10:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
In the case of McCarthy , that would make perfect sense. Look at the lies he threw at Ed Murrow and the ACLU.
Considering the fact that he always WAS a habitual out and out LIAR, that point is a fact -- and facts inherently are POV to a degree. Or are you about to tell me he was telling the truth when he said that Edward R. Murrow was "by his own admission a member of the Industrial Workers of the World"? Murrow went on the record stating that McCarthy was lying about him. He never made any such admission and never appied for membership in that union. McCarthy offered no evidence beyond his own accusations. Whereas, Murrow showed hard, filmed, documented proof of everything he reported.
Revert. -- Jason Palpatine 00:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC) speak your mind
If I make a mistake, please let me know on my talk. (although I did notice today)
Thanks. — nathanrdotcom (Got something to say? Say it.) 01:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I have regarded my material about crossbows during the crusades. It is stated that the crossbow was called "Frankonian bow" and not a single word about composite crossbows. Can you name any source for this?
- My source was a book called Encyclopedia of Arms and Armor. In general, it's certainly the case that the Arabs of this time used composite hand bows, so it seems very likely that if they used crossbows at all, they would have used the same composite construction for them. Still, it's possible my source is incorrect; I'll see if I can find some confirmation of that point. KarlBunker 13:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
And before he is telling, that other findings are recognized as crossbow parts according to their similarity to hill tribes equipment.
- "Be that as it may, field archaeology has not yet uncovered bronze crossbow mechanisms dating earlier than the start of the Warring States period in around 600BCE (A grave burial at Qufu, the ancient capital of Lu. See Zhu Fenghan: ‘Ancient Chinese Bronzes’ p. 274). Since the ability to create high-precision bronze castings is clearly evident from as far back as the Shang period in around 1300BCE, this late development of the use of bronze for crossbow mechanisms is surprising. So also is the absence of an unambiguously-read Chinese character denoting the crossbow. (I discount here references to the crossbow in 'Tai Jia' section of the Shang Shu as a Han Dynasty fabrication.)"
- Have been looking up Chinese history definitions. Well, in some cases the hill tribes are counted Chinese, although not all of them live in China. In other cases they are regarded as separate ethnics. This is about a history of absorption, coexistence and conquest. And then the population split due to differing religions (Muslims). Often they are called ***-Chinese (like Han-Chinese, Hue-Chinese and others). So it is really a big question what was China and one can argue about the differing opinions for a long time. Not even the government of the Peoples Republic has one clear definition, but different ones for different uses. So even hill tribes artefacts can be counted Chinese, depending upon the defintion used.
Wandalstouring 13:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I just cann't understand the reason why you delete my contribution to Ironclad? Removing edit that I can't glean enough information from to be able to convert it into acceptable English)? What is a acceptable english to your opinion or what you did is just a vandalism?
What I suggest is that : if you have trouble in understanding what I had written,or u found my english is so poor to make me understand, u may be glad to perfect it or just let it alone. No deleting , No Vandalism! Please Ksyrie 07:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ksyrie -- I think the edit you made to Ironclads was an important one, and I tried very hard to make it into an edit that an English speaking reader could understand and get some information from. I went to the Chinese web site you linked, and tried using Systran to get some further information from it. I looked up several key words on Google to see if I could find any English articles on the same subject. Neither of these were any help. I think it you and I work together, we could clarify the entry into the article and make it a good one. Unfortunately, I'm leaving for a 4-day vacation soon, so I won't be able to work on this until I get back. I'll contact you again in 4 days. KarlBunker 10:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
medieval crossbow bolts for warfare heavier than arrows
http://www.dhm.de/datenbank/index.html?/datenbank/ak00/ak006539.html example of a crossbow bolt from between 1401 and 1600, 37,7cm long, 74g heavy (in German, official site of an institution similar to the Smithsonian)
http://www.dhm.de/datenbank/index.html?/datenbank/ak00/ak006549.html 15th century, 35cm long, 100g heavy
www.leo.org can translate you all words necessary, use copy and paste.
Historic arrows are between 20 and 30g. Sry, I tried for several hours, but I get no good English source (ask an archer).
http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/cross_l_v_c.html Someone comparing lighter crossbow bolts penetrating power to heavy longbowarrows and the crossbow sucked. Well, it is plain nonsense. These are the worst possible conditions for a bolt to be used on a medieval warfare crossbow and the best for an arrow of a longbow. He does even in this article admit that heavier crossbow bolts are not accelerated to a significantly lesser speed. E(kinetic) = 1/2*mass*(speed)² so no significant lesser speed means much more kinetic energy.
English sources are perhaps strongly influenced by the English, with a nostalgy for the longbow. Modern crossbow bolts consist out of the same light material as arrows and are a bit shorter, but the acceleration system and speed for both is almost the same today. You can ask any distributer questions about this.
So could you kindly correct your error. Warfare crossbow bolts were absolutely several times heavier than arrows. Wandalstouring 14:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for doing this excellent research. I've corrected "heavier" to "several times heavier." KarlBunker 15:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Tell & the crossbow I wrote the earlier version and I have nothing to argue about. Wandalstouring 14:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
nice work Karl, I will send you the info first. You paraphrased it much better. Wandalstouring 22:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you have a look at cavalry tactics. I started improving this article by translating the German wiki articles about cavalry tactics. Wandalstouring 14:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- If I can find time to, I will. It's been nice working with you on Crossbow, and I think we've done some excellent work on it together. KarlBunker 14:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Take a look, I really changed that article. slowly it is about tactics.
Wandalstouring 01:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your input; it makes senses. It also means that if I find a brown rat down my garden, I should better not keep it as a pet either, something I did not think about.
take a look at the ballista article. Wandalstouring 20:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
you can be pretty right about Saracens having composite crossbows, they knew the Greek classics. C discussion on the ballista page. Wandalstouring 20:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
That's odd...It looks like (from the block log) that Cortez was blocked a month ago by Samuel Blanning; I'm not sure why he was able to edit again today.
Regardless, after his edit today, both KimvdLinde and I placed renewed indefinite blocks; if he edits again drop me a line and I'll try something else if this block doesn't 'stick'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Just curious about reverting my date wikification — not looking for an argument or anything, I just thought they were a bit inconsistent and not amenable to users' display preferences: I didn't think that the ISO-type dates were especially unreadable but I suppose this goes to prove that view isn't necessarily unanimous! Anyway, I'm happy to go through and redo them for consistency's sake, just not using the same method, so I thought I'd get some consensus about the preferred approach to it this time ... maybe [ [dd month] ] [ [yyyy] ], and leave out individual years perhaps? Chris 07:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe it's a silly prejudice of mine, but in general I don't see the point of Wikifying dates; and least of all when it includes converting them to less-readable numerical format. I confess I haven't read the official WP policy on dates, Wikified and otherwise, yet. I'll do that sometime soon. KarlBunker 10:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- I suppose one of my own pet hang-ups is inconsistent dates, or dates in the "wrong" format. :) I guess I'm mostly ambivalent about them linking all over the place, but that just seems to be what it does; anyway, this is what the style guide says: date formatting. Fortunately that doesn't mean being forced to use the ISO date format, however. Your call, since you spent a lot of time editing the page, but I'd quite like to change them as per my suggestion... Chris 12:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link; it included some info I was embarrassing ignorant of. :-) I'm a fan of consistency myself, so if you're eager to go through the dates in this article and are willing to keep the text-name of the month, please feel free!--KarlBunker 13:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Right, done, hopefully without me breaking anything along the way! Chris 13:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
As I told the other person who edits this article, I do not mean to fight with you. I have no desire to turn this into a fight between us; my only concern is improving this article, and making it neutral, showing mcCarthy from both the bad and good perspectives. Now I am perfectly willing to start over with this, if we can debate some changes and make them happen. I think this article could be featured, and I want to help make that happen. Judgesurreal777 22:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't remove referenced material
See WP:CITE. 18.104.22.168 17:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- See anyone can edit (and also tell me which article you're talking about) --KarlBunker 17:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi KarlBunker. I restored the strange looking links you took out of trade union. They're actually just inter-wiki links to other language wikipedias. Specifically Japanese, Korean, and (I'm not sure what language zh: stands for. :) Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 18:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah; sorry about that -- I was using an unfamiliar browser and didn't realize that it just wasn't displaying non-roman characters correctly. KarlBunker 22:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I really appreciate that. Though it would be lovely to be an FAC, it's ultimately more important that some young person who's just discovering noir come across the article and get excited by it.
You know, I've kept my real big opinion out of it (well, except for a few little hints). I don't really believe in the emphasis of the opening line: "Film noir is a cinematic mode primarily associated with Hollywood crime dramas that set their protagonists in a corrupt and unsympathetic world," which is my best statement of the consensus critical (and, it would seem, average Wikipedian) view. If that introductory definition was entirely mine to conceptualize, it would go something like this: "Film noir is a term primarily applied to Hollywood crime dramas focusing on the interaction of greed and erotic desire. During the era of black-and-white cinematography, movies now regarded as "noir" tended to employ dramatic, low-key lighting schemes to a much greater degree than did other Hollywood productions. From their earliest days through the present, many film noirs haved shared an attitude toward human relations that distinctively mixes the romantic and the sardonic, expressed in wisecracking dialogue often filled with sexual innuendo." But, however obvious all that seems to me--from, y'know, watching the movies--that really would be controversial and thus unWikipedian (I've also left untouched that whole business of "nihilism, mistrust, paranoia, and cynicism"--how about wit, libertinism, and sexy couture?), which is also why I've stepped very lightly so far around that still messy characteristics/elements section at the end.
Again, thank you very much for your message. —Dan DCGeist 19:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
3RR on Joseph McCarthy
I've just warned User:Mantion for WP:3RR on Joseph McCarthy. I'm not going to try and get him banned at this stage (as he appears to be a new user). You might want to keep an eye out for any further reverts, though. Nloth 04:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Now I realize that you were talking about the criticism section, not aura. Sorry I was not there to help - I did make some comments about aura. When the mediation started, the volume of edits (mainly on the talk page) was simply more than I had time to even read and follow. I had not looked at that section since mediation started until I saw your request for a comment. A Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration might be the best way to get disruptive editors banned. I've never done that and it looks like you need to gather a lot of evidence. Bubba73 (talk), 22:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Karl, now that disruption has a week off, would you like to join Hob, Mike, and me and perhaps Bubba on the CSICOP talk page to finish making agreed upon changes to the CSICOP article? Askolnick 04:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
You're right, of course: nobody uses the term blacklead in normal conversation any more. I used it here because it would have been the term in use during the currency of the process. Is there a way to reflect this in the text, while explaining the modern equivalent in parentheses? Moonraker88 05:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's fine just to call it "graphite." This is a small detail of gunpowder manufacture, so there's no need to get too technical or historically precise. KarlBunker 09:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- As you like. Moonraker88 11:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
military history coordinator
I put you up for elections and you have to join formally the club of military history project ;) Wandalstouring 21:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not about spending more time, just direct people to spent their own time on things you want fixed on wiki. Wandalstouring 21:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The images that were uploaded were fairly relevant to the page (i.e. depicting the usage of a crossbow). It would've been vandalism if I just placed various things that made no sense (or to purposely get a rise out of somebody) what so ever. TMC1982 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- The addition of 16 images from a film, one of which vaguely shows a crossbow, is sufficiently inappropriate to constitute "vandalism." KarlBunker 14:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Your work and infinite patience is appreciated
As someone who knows how infuriating and frustrating it is to deal with Davkal's disruptive tactics, I appreciate the tremendous amount of work and the patience you've shown in trying to make CSICOP into a good article. Just wanted you to know that. Askolnick 04:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
3rr on Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
I've blocked you for 3RR on Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal William M. Connolley 11:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Karl, take a look at the CSICOP talk page, and if you want to comment prior to the expiry of your block, please do so here -- I'll put your talk page on my watch list. (You can still edit your talk page when blocked.) Askolnick has indicated he's willing to participate in the mediation again, and I have proposed some ground rules that I think will speed the process up and make it less frustrating. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Mike, In the interest of my frustration level and to avoid diving into that sea of garbage I mentioned, I'm going avoid reading the CSICOP discussion page for the time being. KarlBunker 12:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- OK--I'll work with Askolnick, and I look forward to your return. You've shown you can incorporate valuable contributions from someone you completely disagree with, and I think you're an asset to that page. I hope to see you back there shortly. Mike Christie (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, Karl. Of all my contributions to Wikipedia, I may be proudest of the Basic Instinct caption (and, believe me, it was a lonely pride till now).
Yes, I did set up that very ambitious Hollywood blacklist scaffold (perfect word). I was hoping that others would join in to add some serious content, but it hasn't happened, and I can't say I feel currently motivated to do all that expansion myself. (My really ambitious ambition, by the way, is to provide reputable citations [or overt blacklists like Red Channels] for every single blacklistee--no one's weighed in on that either.) I don't mind you consolidating what's there at all--though the article really should have some sort of discussion of the major 1951 HUAC hearings and Kazan's testimony. Feel free to make the article as it stands more useful and reader-friendly; some months down the road I might return and expand it without the scaffold. Best, Dan —DCGeist 17:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh...forgot to thank you for the explanation of what makes a blacklistee that you wrote for the Talk page. I get cold sweats imagining someone putting Mel on the article's list. DCGeist 17:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Somehow, I never considered just cutting the damn things without discussion. Do you find that these cuts generally remain? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- :-) I never really tried it before. It's my guess that most people who contribute pop-culture trivia are just passing through, rather than being article-watchers, so maybe there's grounds to hope it will stay. KarlBunker 00:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC) -
Logic and Loch Ness
Those who believe there is a Loch Ness Monster might say "you can't prove it doesn't exist." But you can: just drain the lake and check for any monsters flopping around in the mud.
Your example only holds true if you restrict your conditions sharply enough. Obviously, I can prove whether or not I have any cheese left in my refrigerator.
However, you cannot prove universal negatives. You might be able to prove that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist now in that lake, but you cannot then imply that the creature never exited anywhere. The "cloche'" of "you cannot prove a negative" isn't so much false, as incomplete in that formulation.
Of course, this opens up an infinite realm of possibilities, all mostly useless. I cannot disprove that the universe is not full of invisible fairies that don't have any effect on the rest of the physical universe, don't do anything, and can never be detected. However, as they have no effect on anything, they can be safely ignored, even though I can't disprove their existence. This is where we start running into the limits of logic and the scientific method as a means for deducing the nature of reality. Usually we employ Occam's razor at this point, but that is a general "rule of thumb" for selecting amongst alternative explanations - and it doesn't always hold true. I don't have a better alternative, so I'll stick with logic and rationality, but it is a good idea to realize that one's cognitive tools have limits and what they are.
As to the article....
Perhaps I misread the explicit text, or the implications of the text, but the edit did seem to imply that the current laws of biology were sufficient to explain all workings of human consciousness - which is blatantly nonsense, or at least they have not done so yet.
I have not read Penrose, et al - but I think it unlikely that someone who seems to have garnered at least recognition for their ideas - even if their ideas are not widely accepted (possibly yet), and certainly unproven - is considered a total crackpot by the scientific community.
My objections were not so much of the explicit statement of the editor's text, but the fact that the implications of the text were quite easy to read as "but this is all obvious nonsense" (something that seemed to be supported by their edit comment "metal foil hats"), when insufficient evidence exists for a conclusive decision either way.
That particular "lake" hasn't been "drained" yet. - Vedexent 07:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health --BillC 00:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Please note that an arbitration request has been made regarding you at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#KarlBunker. A statement from you is necessary. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 20:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Tad more than twice
It's been a tad more than "twice":
I was just counting on CSICOP at the time. Later I found more. Also, that person has removed your comments from their talk page, which is also discouraged. Bubba73 (talk), 02:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Your McCarthy revisionism
Your post to Talk:McCarthyism
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. KarlBunker 16:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Search Term: "User_talk:Jtpaladin"
Karl, I mean no personal attacks on you. Your work on the McCarthy article is masssive but you delete factual information that is backed by govt. sources. You've run amok, as others have also stated, and seem to have no problem parroting the Communist Party U.S.A. line on just about everything. I don't know what motivates you to do what you do but it can not be the truth. I've spent considerable amount of time providing well supported factual information and you and your minions will delete it with a keystroke. That's not right. You are not serving the better interests of Wikipedia by your actions.
I have spoken to Administrators, without using your name, and they have also displayed dismay over what is going on in the McCarthy page. If you are someone who cares about the truth, can't we work out something between you and I, in private, by email perhaps, where I can share with you my data and you can tell me if you think it's factual and supported or not. I would also like to read what you post before you post it but don't feel that this is what I'm demanding. I would truly like an opportunity to appeal to your sense of fairplay and historical accuracy. If you would like to read my data and have a chance to debate it with me in private, please email me at: firstname.lastname@example.org. I really would like this opportunity to work with you and put an end to the constant bickering on this subject. Does this sound like something you would like to try? Please let me know either way. Thank you.
P.S. I have no interest in personal attacks so please do not think that this is something in which I would engage.
Regards, jtpaladin John
- John -- You made a personal attack; that is not a matter of debate. If you are now withdrawing that attack, that's good. However, you are to some degree continuing your attack by saying that I am not motivated by the truth, that I am parroting the CPUSA line, that I have "minions", etc. Please note the rule regarding personal attacks; it's a simple one: comment on content, not on editors.
- As for the article (whether McCarthyism, Joseph McCarthy or both), it's true I've added a lot to the article, I've and made extremely heavy use of citations to support what I've added. If anyone is feeling any "dismay" about what is happening with any article, they can discuss it in the Discussion page of the article. If you know of any incorrect facts, missing facts or unsupported opinions in an article, you should by all means discuss them in the Discussion page of the article. There's no need to use private email for that, and I don't see any advantage to doing that. On the discussion page anyone can comment and contribute. I'll be watching and I'll be most interested in any data you have. KarlBunker 20:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Karl, come on, I've already done that and my posts, even though they are documented and supported are still deleted. You know that. In previous discussions I've called for members to delete info that can not be factually supported by govt. sources and that call was ignored. I thought that if you and I could discuss these issues in private, we could get more done and stablize this back and forth nonsense but you seem to prefer it. So, fine. When I get a chance, I will repost the supported data and if you disagree, I would be interested as to why. Jtpaladin 20:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Saying "I've called for members to delete info that can not be factually supported by govt. sources" doesn't make sense to me. A WP article isn't written just from government sources, it's supposed to be written using all valid scholarly sources. Also, you seem to think that I should have some familiarity with your past edits. I'm afraid I don't; if you'd like to show a link to a particular "dif" and ask me to explain in detail why I disagreed with or removed a particular edit of yours, I'd be happy to do so. KarlBunker 22:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- I found this diff of an edit you added to Joseph McCarthy and which I removed. I'll explain some of the problems I see with this edit:
- Your single source is James J. Drummey's article in "The New American", the journal of the John Birch Society. As an organization with an extremest and highly visible political agenda, this source doesn't meet WP's criteria as a reliable source. It might be a valid source for a brief quotation expressing an opinion, but that's all. See in particular this section of Wikipedia's guidelines: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan and extremist websites.
- Second, this edit consisted of about 675 words, all expressing a single author's viewpoint. This is obviously disproportionate, especially considering that this author's view is very much at odds with that of most other authors in this field.
- Third, you used direct quotes from Drummey's article to an extent that violated copyright. See Wikipedia:Fair use#Text. The fact that you open paragraphs with phrases like "Drummey continues by saying that..." does not alter this. This is not a mere technicality. By quoting Drummey, you inserted a great many statements that expressed a point of view. If you were to put his writing into your own words, the edit would then become unacceptable for reasons of POV. For example:
- By noting how many of the people mentioned in the Tydings hearings would later be dismissed or would resign, it is implied that there was some legitimate grievance against them. Implying a thing like that is POV; it should be directly stated, with a supporting source (and there Drummey wouldn't count, since he himself only uses insinuation).
- Those who appeared in public sessions were either hardened Fifth Amendment pleaders or persons about whom there was a strong presumption of guilt. "Hardened Fifth Amendment pleader" is obviously POV; it expresses the opinion that using the Fifth Amendment is an admission of guilt. "persons about whom there was a strong presumption of guilt" just isn't good writing for WP; it doesn't say who held this presumption, but implies that it was universal.
- But even those witnesses who were brazen, insulting, and defiant... Obvious POV issues there.
- ...were afforded their rights to confer with their counsel before answering a question, to confront their accusers or at least have them identified and have questions submitted to them by their counsel... Drummey makes a factual error here. Many witnesses could not face their accusers, or know who their accusers were, because those accusers were FBI informants, and the FBI insisted on keeping their identities secret in most cases. This passage also implies that a right to confer with counsel is sufficient to make these hearings just and valid in terms of civil rights. This is an opinion, and one that many disagree with.
- Your edit included another 3 paragraphs taken from Drummey's article. I think you get the idea by now, so I won't bother going through those paragraphs point-by-point. KarlBunker 00:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Karl, you have far more time to deal with this matter than I do. So, it's impossible to point out all your assumptions and errors regarding you adding your opinion as fact. I have spoken to Mr. Drummey myself and aside from giving me permission to cite his work, he told me his sources for the information that was posted. It was essentially all from govt. records surrounding the hearings. These are facts that you are ignoring and are working hard to bury in a sea of words that fails to portray the Senator according to his true works and record. For example, you are simply wrong that witnesses did not have a chance to face their accusers. In a case where an ascertion was made, the Senate committee provided the source of the information. When witnesses were necessary, they were provided. It's all there in the public record but for whatever reason, you are ignoring it.
- As for the JBS or The New American, you attack them whereas you don't attack the leftwing sources you have posted. I don't care if the info comes from the Devil himself, fact is fact, no matter how hard you attack the source. I have been working on a McCarthy book for several years but most of my documentation are in storage so I'm working with few of my materials, but even so, I have solid proof that has been recorded in hearings and newer information that proves that Senator McCarthy was right. Lastly, the tragic exclusion of the state of the nation, with regard to the Korean War, is disgraceful. How can you ignore the fact that at the time Sen. McCarthy was serving, we were essentially at war with Communist North Korea, Communist China, and the Soviet Union? WE WERE AT WAR!! We had only recently lost China because of treason within Washington D.C. and here American soldiers were dying being killed by Communists. And these communists were supported by spies and traitors in govt. Why is it that this important "background setting" is not mentioned in appropriate detail? This failure is disgusting and needs to be addressed immediately. As I stated, I hope to clear up alot of the misinformation that carpets this subject as I gather ALL my resources. In the meantime, why don't you at least set the background surrounding the Korean Conflict and how that applies to the urgency to investigate communist subversion of the U.S. govt.? Jtpaladin 17:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- If Drummey gave you permission to "cite" his work, that's hardly relevant, since what you did was to copy-and paste his work. If he gave you permission to copy his work, that's nice, and that addresses one of the many points I laid out above. For the most part I had no complaint with the facts in Drummey's article, so it's also irrelevant to tell me what evidence he had for his facts. If it's the case that all the witnesses that McCarthy questioned were allowed to face their accusers, I'd be happy to include that information in the article. Let me know when you have a citable source for that.
- You may not care that your source was the John Birch Society, but Wikipedia does. You may consider the mainstream authors that I used as sources to be "left wing", but Wikipedia and the rest of the scholarly world do not. You needn't repeat this argument with me, because your argument in this case is with Wikipedia rules, not with me.
- The Korean war, along with other sources of anti-communist tension, are mentioned in the article. The war isn't made a particularly prominent focus because neither McCarthy himself nor any of his biographers made it a particularly prominent focus. Again, Wikipedia rules are your opponent here, because Wikipedia rules dictate that the content of an article be based on the work of scholars in the field.
- You say you have some resources and documentation tucked away somewhere. Until such time as you can cite scholarly sources, I suggest we put this discussion on hold. You're spending a lot of your valuable time telling me your opinions and beliefs about various things, and that isn't useful or relevant, nor do I find it interesting. Even if I agreed with your opinions, that wouldn't alter Wikipedia's rules requiring reliable sources. KarlBunker 21:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Karl, as much as I would like to spend more time on the McCarthy article, I simply don't have the time. It took me this long just to respond to your 10/17/06 entry above. Plus, it looks like the article has gotten a great deal more balanced since I last looked at it. For one thing, someone finally listed Buckley's book from the 1950's that I listed but got deleted. So, the urgency to correct the record is a bit subsided. And, there's another McCarthy book coming out in 2007 that may have some relevant info to add. One thing I would like to ask you is if you have ready access to the public, not executive session, of McCarthy's committee. I have the executive hearings but not the public ones. I have excerpts from the public hearings but I would love a .pdf file of the public hearings. Do you have a source on that? Let me know. I would appreciate it. Thank you. Jtpaladin 01:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm happy to hear that the article looks more balanced to you now. That's a little odd though, since it's changed only in minute details since you launched your original tirade at me. Perhaps you're confused by the fact that there are two articles on two different subjects: Joseph McCarthy and McCarthyism. Anyway, no, offhand I don't know of an online source for McCarthy's public hearings. KarlBunker 02:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Karl, no, the article is different from the time I first looked at it. Not including the time you think I insulted you, which I didn't. The article includes books that were not there, including the Buckley book, and a list of people who were accused and found to be security risks. So, I don't know what timeline you're looking at but it is very different than when I first looked at it. Jtpaladin 21:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
J. Edgar Hoover
Thanks for your hard work on the Hoover article. I had planned to search for the sources myself, but you've done the work for me. Thanks. Keep up the good work.Ramsquire 19:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kudos. There's lots more source finding and fact checking to be done on that article, so don't feel like I've taken all the fun stuff for myself! :-) KarlBunker 19:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I asked for a third opinion of Talk:Area bombardment, to stop a sterile revert war. IP 22.214.171.124 and I are locked in an edit war over Bombing of Dresden in World War II (see Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II), and this edit is overspill from that. The Dresden issues are multi faceted and IMHO would not realy be suitable for third party arbitration. However as the Area bombardment issue is over one word, I thought it was but IP 126.96.36.199 clearly does not. As (s)he did not address your posting but addessed his/her reply to me, perhaps if you were to revert his/her last edit (s)he would accept your third party judgement. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I no longer have the referances I used last time I worked on the Tet article. I included the Richard's info because of the use of Grand strategy. I'll make a trip to the library when I get a chance. My point of view at present is "one should perhaps first ask oneself to consider how long the people of any nation can be expected to maintain popular support for a conflict that lasts 12 years, is bankrupting their country, causing spiral inflation with resulting domestic hardships, costing large numbers of casualties, and which has obviously stagnated and is failing to achieve policy objectives—irrespective of a sniping media tone or slant." - WILLIAM M. DARLEY KAM 20:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed. And also a war with no front and no clearly defined goals, and therefor no measurable progress--no victory on Iwo Jima, no liberation of Paris, just "we killed more of theirs than they killed of ours." KarlBunker 01:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing Tet Offensive. It seem to me that style of referencing makes it much more difficult to edit articles, It is hard to find the text. KAM 13:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Second Red Scare and McCarthy
I differ with you. The Second Red Scare clearly started before McMarthy became involved: HUAC was at work in at least 1947. I see the correct solution to be what I set up: McCarthyism as a article referred to from the Second Red Scare article. I have also just been through hundreds of links throughout WP to Red Scare and McCarthyism would not fit in those texts. Thanks Hmains 05:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're entirely correct that The Second Red Scare predates Joseph McCarthy's involvement. It is also considered to have continued after McCarthy was no longer a a factor. Nevertheless the period is referred to by historians as "McCarthyism" or "The Second Red Scare" interchangeably (more often "McCarthyism"). I've never read anything that made a distinction between the two terms. If you know of any work that does make such a distinction, I'd be most interested to know about it, I'm sorry you put so much work into this, but I don't see how it can be considered anything other than a mistake. KarlBunker 13:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- The 'McCarthyism' article is certainly good; congrats on your input to, and protection of, it. My link changes to point to 'First Red Scare' or 'Second Red Scare' instead of just 'Red Scare' were I believe helpful, regardless whether 'Second Red Scare' has content or is a redirect. What I am thinking is that 'Red Scare' should be made into a disambiguation article (see my comments on its talk page). What do you think? Can you help? Thanks Hmains 19:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Your comments on the 'Red Scare' talk page imply I made changes regarding 'McCarthyism' links. I did no such thing. I did no such thing. Do you still have a problem with what I did? What is it exactly? Thanks Hmains 20:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're right, I'm wrong; your changes to the "Red Scare" links did no harm and (I now realize) make sense. I apologize for my misguided comments on the Red Scare talk page. As for making the Red Scare article just a disambiguation page, I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other. I think the article could be made into something that's interesting and useful in itself, talking about "red scares" in general and comparing and contrasting the two major red scares in U.S. history. But right not I'm not feeling like doing such a rewrite myself. KarlBunker 20:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
KarlBunker: thanks for the correction. Could you also place the correction on the Red Scare talk page where this communication started. Thanks Hmains 22:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Already done. KarlBunker 01:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
And thanks. Hmains 04:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
(If you choose to answer, please answer here rather than on my talk page, so's to keep the conversation together. I'll "watch" this page.)
The Red Scare article most surely ought not be made into a disambiguation page. For one thing, an article comparing the two outstanding American "Red Scare" periods is useful, just as you say. But what the article needs is more material on the "Red Scare" (or "Red Menace") as an international phenomenon, rather than the narrow focus on U.S. socio-political history that it has now. Many of the link-changes carried out by Hmains are troublesome in this respect, as they relate to people or places outside of the U.S. If it is somewhat unfitting to have a "Red Menace" link in an article about, say, political history in British Columbia, point to an article that only considers the phenomenon of "red menace" (or scare) in the U.S., it is even less fitting to have such a link redirect to a more narrowly focussed article on McCarthyism. A general article on "Red Scare" is certainly needed. It needs to be made more general, not gutted into a disambiguation page. (Perhaps it ought also be moved to "Red Menace", which I have an impression was somewhat the more general term, "Red Scare" being a mostly an Americanism -- but I might easily be wrong on that.) -- Lonewolf BC 22:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- P.S. the 'red menace' links were already pointing to the "wrong places" before I touched the 4 of them that existed. I only pointed the Canadian article to this as it seemed Canada were very much acting under US influence. I could be wrong, of course. I also noticed the 'red scare' article was very American and, if it were to be comprehensive, needs a re-write to include many more instances of 'red scares' occurring in many more countries. I also saw differences in the material in the Red Scare article section First Red Scare and the First Red Scare articlecile and wondered if all/most of the material in the Red Scare article should be moved and integrated to the First Red Scare article where all differences could be more readidy resolved and watched over than to have two articles to look at. I suppose the same is true of the 'Second Red Scare' section (which does not say much at all) of the 'Red Scare' article and 'McCarthyism' article. Who to work on this? Hmains 22:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- At some point I'd be willing to do a rewrite of the "second red scare" section of the "red scare" article to make it into a better, but equally short, synopsis of the subject.
- Lonewolf BC, I agree an "internationalized" red scare certainly sounds like a nice idea. I'd love to see a good article like that. KarlBunker 00:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- And I would tackle the 'first red scare' section, but one never seems to know what kind of a huff people (not you) are going to get in when you touch 'their article' and I am tired of all this. WP does not pay enough to put up with such. Hmains 04:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
As per JzG's recommendation, I've totally reworked the above article as a revamped stub. Please take another look if you like. Thanks Bwithh 20:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has always been biased, starting from the top (Jimbo Wales ran an Ayn Rand mailing list for years, said "[Friedrich] Hayek’s work...is central to my own thinking about how to manage the Wikipedia project." etc.) on down, it used to pretend it was fair and balanced though. I was accused for years of having sock puppets. As things went downhill here (or uphill from their perspective), they began checking into the accusations of the wing nuts that I had sock puppets, and repeatedly found nothing. Finally, things degenerated to the point where David Gerard, who has checkuser privileges, claimed I was someone named User:Mr. Know-It-All. I have no association with Mr. Know-It-All, but even that aside, there is no rule on Wikipedia that you can't have multiple accounts. So he claimed we had voted on multiple RFA's together, and due to that I was put on probation. Well, a simple comparison of two pages of the RFA's I and he voted on can be done, and it can be seen that his claim there were multiple RFA's the two accounts voted on is false, or that Me and Mr. KIA ever voted on the same RFA ever, not even one, never mind the multiple he said happened. The rules say he had to post the links in the page, but since the links did not exist, since the charge was false, that didn't happen. So they broke their own rules of prosecution, presenting no evidence, and then convicted me on a charge where anyone comparing two pages in the space of a minute can see is false. Of course my pointing this out before the case was closed was completely ignored. Basically, I followed the rules but they didn't like my politics so I was punished for that. The leaps of logic where strange too - I tried to point out that the US supported the "Khmer Rouge" after 1979, which somehow made me responsible for everyone who died in Cambodia prior to 1979. And that sort of thing.
Wikipedia is what it is, thinking you can fix it is like thinking you can fix Fox News by leaving comments in their web site comments section before they're erased. Demopedia and dKosopedia or something of that ilk might become an alternative. If Wikipedia was run by a normal person it might have things centralized, but porn magnate turned Friedrick von Hayek Randroid Jimbo Wales is not that person. Ruy Lopez 05:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Philip J. Klass
Try it now.
I've added a second overriding parameter to control the width, it appears to work in other browsers, but it might screw something up elsewhere.
perfectblue 12:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Much better! Good work. KarlBunker 12:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
You reverted my earlier editing of Hoover. I'd like to find a common ground and have rewritten the opening paragraph to as follows:
John Edgar Hoover (January 23, 1895 – May 2, 1972) was an influential but controversial director of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). He was the founder of the present form of the agency, and remained director until his death in 1972. During his life he was virtually revered by the US Public, but in the years since his death many allegations have clouded his image.
I then follow with a more positive paragraph whcih is then followed by critisism. I'm nit a big Hoover fan eityher, but too harsh a stance will get reversed by other writter.
--Kevin Murray 03:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
You are way off base by reverting a tremendous amount of work, much of which is critical of Hoover. Please reread my work and discuss on the talk page. A third reversion of this work will require involving an administrator.
--Kevin Murray 03:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your cooperation at Hoover. I made all of he change that you suggested. I'd enjoy working with you to improve this article.
--Kevin Murray 04:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Why did You remove the examples given in the science fiction bullets? I don't see that they are completely nonsense. Kdammers 02:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- They were nonsense in that they listed such silly little details that appear in occasional SF stories as "directed energy weapons" and "holography" as if these were "big" concepts. It would have been only a slight exaggeration of that list to include "shoes are held onto people's feet without the use of shoelaces," or "complete meals are automatically prepared at the touch of a button." KarlBunker 02:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean with the complete meals quotation, but let's look at what You actually cut: interstellar/extra... right; antigravity: common enough in SF and not identical with "new scientific principles" (You didn't cut psionics - why is the latter preferable to the former?); flying cars, teleporation, rayguns, etc. - Aren't some of theseuseful for the novice reader of scieince ficiton/sci-fi? Especially in light of the next sentence (In consequence or not of some items listed above, Sci-fi stories often portray completelly or very different political or social realities.), I think the Wiki user should be given some examples for each category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kdammers (talk • contribs) 02:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
- Psionics is a major theme in SF, whereas antigravity is a triviality, that is, it's a central theme in almost no SF stories. Likewise ray guns, which are especially undeserving of an overwritten phrase like "futuristic weapons (including directed-energy weapons taking the place of firearms)". Saying "particularly interstellar travel" in reference to space travel is too specific; it serves no purpose to narrow it down like that. And lastly, no one--absolutely no one--needs such specific examples to clarify the categories listed. By the time a person is old enough to read, he's already been exposed to all of the basic concepts of SF. My edit summary comment was overly gruff and hostile, and I apologize for that, but my edit was an improvement. KarlBunker 03:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe I was unclear: I agree on interstellar travel. But antigrav is not "a triviality" - In older (say, 1920s-1940s) SF it is more common than psychic ability, which was often considered a fantasy element in those days. Ray-guns are very common in space opera of almost writer's time period (I'm not defending the wording of what You removed; it's just that I think some of it should have stayed.) And You are definitely wrong that any-one old enough to read has been exposed to these SF concepts. (Maybe where You live, but not in Ethiopia and Germany, where I have talked to literature adults who can read English and were not aware of any of the "obvious" things of SF.Kdammers 03:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- You weren't unclear, you're just missing my point, and I expect you will continue to do so. This conversation is no longer interesting to me. You can continue it on the article's talk page if you wish, but not here. KarlBunker 11:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I urge you not to make another revert and instead discuss it on the talk page, you've already violated the 3RR on science fiction however I will not report you if you instead discuss. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Attack? I had no racist or ethnocentric intention. Rather, if you take a nice look, you'll see even more infuriating passages in the talk page, by some many others. As I said, I really want to be able to respect a Japanese person. You should know as any other educated person does that the Japanese, on a general perspective, are getting a bad reputaton, for some things that they say wether they are just simply joking around or lying out of national pride. Not just Japanese people, but Koreans, too. I see my own people as zenophobic, profit mongering, and greedy bastards, On a general view. (not me though) Odst 00:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
See talk Page.talk:Ironclad warship--Ksyrie 23:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Have a discuss on the talk page ok?talk:Ironclad warship,we may end in a reasonable result.--Ksyrie 04:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)