Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:29, 11 October 2006

User talk:KarlBunker/Test

Ironclad

Thank you for your awesome contribution to the Ironclad article. Deiaemeth 05:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Narrowband Question

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| 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Thanks for your comments Karl; have posted my reply, and have readded the historical references, mutatis mutandis.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 12:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages; 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. --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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

new project

Based on some of your edits that I've seen, I think you might be interested in this new project Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Rational Skepticism. Bubba73 (talk), 20:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hyperspace Work

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)

Thanks

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 RedSpruce. 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 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)

Question

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 Misplaced Pages 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?!

<tongue-in-cheek>

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)

Gunpowder

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:69.194.137.183 (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 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)

Fermi Paradox

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)

You said

"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

Oops.

If I make a mistake, please let me know on my talk. (although I did notice today)

Thanks. — nathanrdotcom 01:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Saracen crossbow

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)

Selby, crossbow

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)

Ironclad

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)

cavalry tactics

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)

Black rat

Hi,

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.

ballista

take a look at the ballista article. Wandalstouring 20:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Saracen crossbow

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)

Hernando Cortez

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)

(un)Wikified Dates

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 ] ], 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)

McCarthy

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. 204.56.7.1 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)

Trade union

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)

Film noir

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)

CSICOP

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Gunpowder

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)

Crossbow

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)

Hollywood blacklist

Thanks for your note, Karl. Of all my contributions to Misplaced Pages, 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 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)

Pop culture

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)

FYI

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health --BillC 00:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)