User talk:Wbfergus


Archives

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions to the coolest online encyclopedia I know of =). I sure hope you stick around; we're always in need of more people to create new articles and improve the ones we already have. You'll probably find it easiest to start with a tutorial of how the wikipedia works, and you can test stuff for yourself in the sandbox. When you're contributing, you'll probably find the manual of style to be helpful, and you'll also want to remember a couple important guidelines. First, write from a neutral point of view, second, be bold in editing pages, and third, use wikiquette. Those are probably the most important ones, and you can take a look at some others at the policies and guidelines page. You might also be interested in how to write a great article and possibly adding some images to your articles.

Be sure to get involved in the community – you can contact me at my talk page if you have any questions, and you can check out the village pump, where lots of wikipedians hang out and discuss things. If you're looking for something to do, check out the community portal. And whenever you ask a question or post something on a talk page, be sure to sign your name by typing ~~~~.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing! --Spangineer (háblame) 14:06, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

You're into blondes, brunettes and redheads and see nothing wrong with beautiful, naked women? I commend you...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

origins of NOR

Do you think the section I wrote up is worth adding to the policy? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unless there is strong objection, I would like to see it added to the article in place of the surrent section "what is excluded." But given people's concerns that i was the person who extended protection, I would rather someone else do it. Not today, maybe not even for several days to give people time to comment on it or suggest edits, as people did with my proposed revised introduction. Could you keep an eye on it for me? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been up for over a week and we seem no closer now to agreement on changing the sources section - do you think now is a good time to try to move the "origins of NOR" into the policy itself? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, if you don't mind I will leave it to you? I think I am often a polarizing figure and you are not. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cumings

Hey, I happen to agree with you. That does sound realy watered down now, but I'm just a new person here, so my opinion probably wouldn't have any weight. Good luck trying to get your stuff back in. 136.177.33.77 12:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bill

I created my account on here, but when I did an edit, somehow one of yours from yesterday (Sunday), showed up on my Watchlist. How'd that happen? OracleDude 19:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 08:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Order of comments

I didn't quite feel free to move your comment myself on WT:NOR. But it appeared your comment at 19:49 was in response to mine at 19:29. Just wanted to call it to your attention. ... Kenosis 19:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stability

All I have ever meant to argue is that the main point of the policy, and the distinction between primary and secondary sources, has been relatively stable (certainly, stable compared to any controversial article). By the way, there are far more than 500 edits to the policy, if I read you correctly. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. I may have mis-typed (it wouldn't be the first time), but what I wanted to say, was that there have over 500 edits to the policy page itself in less than a year. That is hardly stable, with an average of one and ahlf edits per day. I would really need to look at each and every single edit, diff by diff, to see what each edit entailed. But, from the 50 or so I looked at this morning, almost all of them dealt with "sources". That also doesn't seem to say much about the stability of that section, but again, more research would be needed. Thanks for the reply. wbfergus^Talk 15:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

include

This an example of wikipedia's version of include. WAS 4.250 16:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOR Behaviour

Hi, I know exactly where you are coming from and I can't approve of the attempts to justify poor behaviour in the one response so far, but I think it is unhelpful to escalate the behaviour debate (though I know you want to nip it in the bud). You would not believe the number of posts I have written and not pressed the Save page key on.

The best response is to be irritatingly civil in return. In one of my evil moments I chased one of the worst abusers of quoting civility rules (along with AGF didn't count for me as I was obviously disruptive, and obviously a troll - they never see it, do they?) around for a day in our area of dispute pointing out his every infraction of the rules in the politest terms, and sticking to policy. In the end he exploded in outrage, and he has left me alone since.

Anyhow, I've tried to positively focus some of the debate on motive, and it would be a shame to distract too much from that as it is a "good faith" way to undermine the "I suspect your motives" by clearly stating my motives, and we either see that they are wise and useful or we see that I am a disruptive troll who should be banned from Wikipedia. I know where I stand!

So, thanks for your support on NOR. Stay calm(ish) and keep to the moral high ground. Spenny 13:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Hum, not good at my own advice, but at least I have kept it calm and civil. Spenny 18:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its a wiki

Can this be copied over to the Sandbox example or another sub-page? These are good examples and will stimulate hopefully some decent discussion. I have a couple comments, but they'd be better suited probably there instead of here. wbfergus^Talk 17:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a wiki under GFDL. Can't stop you. But I'm trying a one on one on my user talk page right now to see if that can do anything useful. WAS 4.250 18:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I don't mean to interfere, just from my previous post on your talk page, it shows up on my Watchlist now. My comment on the examples would be along the lines of "but that can still be easily explained without resorting to primary or secondary", original research is still original research no matter what the source is, isn't it? wbfergus^Talk 18:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that comment. It's been amazingly hard to communicate that simple point, but I think we are making progress. WAS 4.250 18:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay off my page

Thank you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess some people simply can't stand to be proven their statements are not not only wrong, but intentionally misleading, and therefore attempt to hide it. So be it, I shall 'interpret' further comments from you in the same vein. I have tried to be civil and strightforward, unlike 'some'. wbfergus^Talk 18:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great reply. Thanks. See this and User:Tom harrison/concerns. Enjoy yourself.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I fail to see though how you pointing out two different pages such as those helps you make your point. It merely looks as if you are bragging that you have been able to make others take the time to write things such as those? Was that your intention? wbfergus^Talk 22:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wbfergus. Walk away. No more needs to be said. Spenny 22:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. It's useless to try and conduct meaningful discussions with some people. wbfergus^Talk 22:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently read a quote from one of America's founding fathers (Thomas Jefferson?) that said that it is common for people to believe that a long held belief is true simply because it is a long held belief; mistaking past acceptance for evidence against current concerns; referring to forms of government in his case; but reminding me of people here who can not see the point of using new terminology to describe a new definition and insist that "primary source" must be the phrase wikipedia uses to describe something simply because that's the phase we have used up to now. People! If only they weren't so ... so .. human. WAS 4.250 06:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spenny, nice subtle attack. Enjoyed it actually. WAS, ditto. Frankly, I don't waste time with this conversation, because I know the vast majority of much more civil individuals on this project won't let anything change, so I don't have to waste any incivil (never sure if that's a word) (uncivil? non-civil?) words on any of you. On to fighting more pressing battles against POV-warriors, who would wet their pants if you guys get your way. Again, not really worried that you have any chance in hell. BTW, wbfergus, I noted your comment on SlimVirgin's page. Apparently, you need to read her contributions a lot more carefully. Because, first, she's gone from the project (essentially). Second, there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that she would support your POV on NOR. But it was amusing for many of us to read it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orange, please heed your own advice (Please stay off my page). Judging by many different comments I've read on Wikipedia specifically about you, and your comments that instigated the comment, you appear little better than a troll. It's probably a good thing our 'subjects of interest' don't cross very often, though I probably have more access to information you could use than you would know what to do with (an entire library devoted to the subject, approx. 300 ft x 200 ft, encompassing over 100,000 different books and other journals). I also happen to work with many different scientists who are working on the various 'geologic' subjects that you edit on here, though I could care less about the subject. A rock hurts when it hits me in the head. That's all I care to know about the subject.

I invited SlimVirgin because whether I agree with her opinions or not, being as involved as she was in the formulation of various aspects of the policy, she would have valuable input, and on top of all of that, she at least is articulate and doesn't appear to have a need to resort to baseless insults and completely inaccurate accusations when (or if) she can't make a point. I really don't care if she agrees with my position or not, her input would be valuable, though reading through the archives, she expressed the same thoughts that many of us are stating once again. If she has changed her mind, it would be interesting to know why, maybe we've missed something. At least I'm open-minded, unlike some people. wbfergus^Talk 19:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ri)Hey, here's an idea: since primary source presents such a poser for many, let's get rid of those pesky Latinate words and go back to our Anglo-Saxon roots. Yes, roots, that's it! ~~Primary sources~~ hell, no! root knowledge. ~~Secondary sources~~ hell, no! trunk knowledge. ~~Tertiary sources~~ hell, no! leaf knowledge. Yes, the tree of knowledge, here on Wikipedia. Oh, I'm in a Rapture! Jim62sch 18:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange how you and Orange seem to always go along together at the same time. 'Nuff said. wbfergus^Talk 19:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that would mean that your talk page is on both of our watchlists. 'Nuff said. Jim62sch 19:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ho hum.... Boring day today? You and Orange obviously have nothing better to do today than troll around. Please take my comments to Orange above personally. And, since you posted messages to my talk page, well I guess my talk page is on your WatchList, Duh! wbfergus^Talk 19:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim and are socks. No meats. No brothers in arms. But really, we both are opposed to POV warriors, that's all. It's the good fight. BTW, to be fair, if you want to troll on my page, please do so, since I'm here. Guess I have to give you a forum to complain. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need. Unlike some, I'm not a troll and actually have better things to do, a life to live, and a family to care for. wbfergus^Talk 22:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOR

Thanks, I will try to fix it - and, thanks for the kind words. I do think kenosis has valuable things to say. Alas, time pressures really limit my ability to contribute. It is a shame that the people who were most involved in developing the explanation of sources are not around to contribute. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Dead Chinese Body in Korea War Article

Hi Wbfergus, the picture is really offensive and I am honest about it. It is not only myself, all most all Chinese feel same way. If a certain group of people all feel the same way, isn't it indicate at least something to you? I wish you can understand. Peace. Dongwenliang 15:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"But, if it was somebody from a different culture you apparently would not object. ". No I object this happens to any cultures. That is why I also removed the US dead body. Anyway this is a case that Chinese are shown without dignity. I personally will never vote this kind of bloody picture with clear identity as featured picture, regardless the race of the dead man. My rules not only apply to others, also apply to myself, you can find on my main page. Actually it is part of our culture, Thanks. Dongwenliang 15:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

re:Congrats

Thanks. You're right, it wasn't always fun or pleasant, but I'm definitely glad I did it, and feel that I'm a better person because of it. It's still sort of strange, knowing that I'll be home for longer than just a week or two like it has been, but I don't think that's a hard change to get used to :) Thanks again. Parsecboy 13:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1.5 month old GA review

On the Korean War. Shall I remove it? Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 12:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm....A different subpage?Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 13:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok with me.Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 09:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]