Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:21, 30 May 2008

WP | Take the WP Challenge!

NOTE: It has always been my personal policy on Misplaced Pages to immediately strike or remove any discussion that I have posted that others deem offensive on request. I do this whether I agree with the assessment or not. It is not my intention to offend anyone or to threaten anyone. However, I have been known to try to warn other editors who I have observed flouting various policies and therefore endangering their privileges and the project.

Archives

Barnstars Humor Mainpage ToDo Staging Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

dilution math corrections

Just a remainder in case you forgot, I'm still waiting on Talk:Homeopathy that you tell me how my dilution math is incorrect --Enric Naval (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not know that it is. I will get back to you when I get a spare moment. I have lots of other calculations to do.-- Filll (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw you were busy on other talk pages. I just wanted to check my math before demolishing Peter Morrell's claims that the pheromones concentrations are actually are low. I think that most of the concentrations he talked about were between 2C and 3C, and there are problems about dogs breathing many liters of air, so they are sampling a lot more molecules (I need to check how many molecules a cubic meter of air has, and how much air a dog breathes) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Back of the envelope gives 1.1872 * 10 molecules in a deep breath. This assumes 1.2 g/L density (air at sea level) and 100% nitrogen (not bad, and a smaller source of error than the next assumption) with 4.6 L vital capacity (good for a 70 kg human). - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 02:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Nylon Bug

Someone already started it, and it's got substantial content. :) Elecmahm (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Old weight systems

I have collected a lot more information to extend the article on apothecaries' weight. I am still working on it, but you might be interested in what I have already in my sandbox. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I really appreciate it. I am poking around looking into miscibility calculations using Euler relations. To really do this reasonably accurately, one has to do quite a bit of real mathematics and real science, which is somewhat surprising. However, I think when it is done properly, we will have produced the most accurate contribution ever to this area; far more accurate than anything else I have seen in the literature. Plus learned a tiny bit too.--Filll (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your participation requested

(Cross-posted to several users' talk pages)

Your participation on User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing would be appreciated. Raul654 (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My current position on the Moulton unblock/unban

For my current personal position, see User:Filll/Moultonunblock.--Filll (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have only had a cursory look into the Moulton ordeal, and I know you and I have had some slight disagreements in the past, but I wanted to comment on something you wrote:

If any restrictions against Moulton are to be lifted, I would suggest that it would be most prudent to, at a minimum, (1) do so with the clear understanding that Moulton only be allowed to edit solely in areas in which Moulton has no WP:COI difficulties such as Picard's biography, or ideological agendas, such as in the areas of evolution, creationism and intelligent design (2) avoid extremely sensitive topics like WP:BLP (3) be required to submit to an extended period of mentorship, with the understanding that if the mentor is unable to control him or unwilling to supervise him properly, that Moulton's editing privileges be restricted (4) Moulton be required to follow community norms of behavior including the following of Misplaced Pages principles like the WP:Five pillars (5) demonstrate that he can function and cooperate on Misplaced Pages productively and have those he works with attest to this fact or else have his privileges restricted again, by default.

I think much of this is reasonable and logical. 3, 4, and 5 are no brainers. 1 and 2 are a bit squishier (I too would restrict him from editing areas where he has a conflict of interest (the Picard article, for example), but would allow him to work on other living people's articles under the appropriate policies, and perhaps on the ideological articles as well (maybe restricting him to proposing any changes on talk pages)). But on the whole, I just wanted to say thank you for taking a calm and open approach to this. Mahalo, Filll. --Ali'i 13:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

People get so wrapped up in ideological advocacy, and paint others as unreasonable or monsters or whatever. If they just look to see what we are suggesting, they will see we just want to follow the principles of Misplaced Pages as closely as possible. There is no demand for revenge or to smear anyone. Oh well...--Filll (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion

Filll, I saw your question on Fritzpoll's RfA. I was about to comment there but... eegads... I co-nominated him, it would probably be improper to get too involved within the RfA. Do you think it might be easier, and more reasonable, and more useful, for everyone if you yourself picked one or two questions from your challenge? Even with your multiple choice option, it could take hours upon hours to properly analyze the situations and consider all the mini-questions within questions. I understand your good intent, but I just think it is unlikely that most viewing the RfA will go through and read all of your questions and then all of his responses. It's just a bit much. I of course know they are optional, and so does Fritzpoll, but I actually think your questions could be usefull to RfA evaluations... just maybe eased in a little slower, so the community can digest it. Thanks. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. I think multiple choice is not too onerous, but then I am pretty experienced in these situations at this point. When I discuss them with other editors who are experienced in controversial article editing, they also are able to give very quick rational and detailed answers immediately, but that is a matter of experience. People who are not experienced are pretty overwhelmed I think. But that is the whole point of these User:Filll/WP Challenge exercises: to expose people that are unfamiliar with the controversial articles to this deeply troublesome area on Misplaced Pages. I will suggest he pick two of his choosing. How is that? Of course, as you note, these are purely optional.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said. I think Fritzpoll will be fine answering any of the 8, I guess it was more of a time thing, and as I said above, I'm just not sure most who are evaluating him will read all 8 questions. Then some might start discussing answers... others are too lazy to click on the links, etc. Suggesting he pick 2 sounds fine to me. But of course I am a co-nom... so you should still do whatever you think is best. :)) Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)If he wants to do it, that is fine. If he is pressed for time, that is ok too. I understand of course. They are supposed to be fun and challenging and entertaining. If they are misery, then they are not serving much purpose.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just saw that you changed it, but I'm confused with something else now. Shouldn't he be answering the questions within the actual RfA page? You say to link to his answers, that's not the normal practice. Really, optimally, whatever questions he chooses to answer should be also pasted in to the RfA, regardless of size. When the RfA closes, people know not to ammend it, but if Fritz were answering elsewhere, it would be harder to later look back on his RfA in a single place. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well two or three RfA candidates have done it that way already, with a link. I have never asked this before; others did and that is how they decided to respond, which is fine with me. If he wants to post it there on the RfA page itself, that is fine too although it is nice to have a subpage of all the responses to the Challenge exercises so people can compare them and study them, etc.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Whatever is fine with the community, is fine with me. Also, I think any candidate that hopes to pass will be able to determine how/where they want to answer the question, so it's probably not a major issue. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User: Kim Bruning and a few others have suggested trying to improve our training materials for new admins and new editors and admin candidates. And these User:Filll/WP Challenge exercises are a tiny contribution to that effort. Now that I start to understand Misplaced Pages a little, I notice that very few have any experience with controversial issues. And admins are often pressed into service in these areas so it is good to expose them to it a bit and to see how their judgement is. Eventually I would favor having a much better set of training exercises and classes and lectures and so on that editors, admin candidates and new admins can take advantage of. I do not want to make it harder to become an admin; I want to see a higher fraction passing RfA, but I want to see those passing RfA having more experience in some of the more difficult areas. At least some superficial awareness, if nothing else.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Disappointed

Filll, I haven't yet purchased headphone, though I'll let you know when I do. However, I just happened to re-read some of our dialogue here and was a bit shocked by your comments. Could you re-read this now with some separation of time and give me your feedback. You suggested that pro-homeopathy editors were ignoring the negative studies on Arsenicum album, and yet, when Arion and I pointed out that we do not know about any negative studies on this medicine, you accused me of "wikilawyering." I still don't get how you could pull this rabbit out of the hat. I previously asked for an apology, but never got it. I still believe that I deserve one. DanaUllman 00:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that I offended you. I do not want to offend anyone. However, I would like us to aim towards an NPOV resource. And from all that I know and have read, to state that homeopathy is proven to work and there are no contrary studies that show no efficacy beyond placebo is inaccurate. You deny that such studies exist? I have read of several. Part of my disgust with the article and withdrawal from it has been that I did not want to spend endless hours fighting this pointless battle. I would rather do something where I can contribute in a positive way, like untwisting the nightmarish confused contradictory scales that are used in homeopathy to denote "potency".--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I have never said or even implied that there is "no negative research on homeopathy." There are plenty of negative studies on homeopathy. Our conversation would have been totally different if our talk was taking place under the larger article, homeopathy. However, our previous conversation took place in the article on Arsenicum album, and up until now, all of the research testing it has been positive (as far as I know). The probable reason for this is that the research testing it has been narrowed to animal and human trials in subjects who were exposed to that specific mineral (as compared with other research in which treating diseased states tends to require more individualization of remedy selection). I now understand why you said what you said, but I am still confused how you jumped to your generalization when I had already said that I was only referring to the subject of the article itself, Arsenicum. That is when you accused me of "wikilawyering," and then, Shoemaker chimed in with other offensive (and inaccurate) remarks. And then, to make things even worse, your silence has helped to put additional nails in my coffin. I don't get it. It is because I sense that you don't mean to be offensive that misunderstanding and your silence is so darn confusing. Please review our previous conversation to see what really happened, and if appropriate, please acknowledge what your new understanding is. DanaUllman 03:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well to be honest, if there are homeopathic treatments which have only strong positive results, then I am not sure how we should write the articles. If there are no mainstream medicine opinions to the contrary, then one line of thought is that we present the view that "the treatment has having only positive evidence in its favor". I do not know the literature on this. I would be quite surprised if this were true, but it is possible. For example, Zicam obviously has some clearly measurable biological effects and the manufacturer even had to pay legal settlements for Zicam's negative side effects on some people. So this is a complicated question and one for which the literature must be plumbed deeply.

On your potential sanctioning: I have witnessed your behavior on the talk pages of these articles for a long long time. Months. And to be honest, it was mainly disruptive. And almost all other contributors were driven away by the behavior of you and your friends. One can be pro-homeopathy and welcomed at Misplaced Pages, like User: Peter morrell. The difference is, willingness to work within the rules and principles and conventions of the community. I like you Dana and I have made various entreaties to try to keep you out of trouble, but when you are unfettered, you have not always done things that were to your advantage.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I appreciate your good nature, though your response above made me laugh. You pointed to Peter Morrill as a good editor who works within the wiki-policies, but it seems that you have not followed homeopathy articles much because Peter is so so so fed up with the disruption from the lividly anti-homeopathy editors, he has left the homeopathy articles. I'm glad that you considered him civil (he is, though he thinks that most editors of the homeopathy articles are not and that they game the system, using wiki-policies and using gang behavior (having an active group of experienced wiki-editors is effectively working to mute me).

There have been four large double-blind placebo controlled trials on the treatment of people with influenza with Oscillococcinum and even a Cochrane Report describing its effects as "promising," but the anti-homeopathy editors have effective kept this info out of the homeopathy article AND even out of the Oscillococcinum article (note: this medicine is not effective in the "prevention" of the flu, but it is effective in its treatment). And yet, I am "disruptive" for referring to it and wanting it as a part of the homeopathy article.

There IS a body of evidence on Arsenicum album, animal and human studies. And yet, most of these studies are ignored, but worse, when I posted on the Talk pages many of them, I got attacked, furiously, including by you (remember that "wikilawyering" comment). And yet, I got called "disruptive." The bottomline here is that IF you believe that homeopathy is totally bunk and totally quackery, then my references to research is "disruptive." But if you want wikipedia to be encyclopedic and NPOV, only POV-pushing anti-homeopathy editors will consider me disruptive.

As for Zicam, it is a homeopathic medicine, though it is called a "low potency" medicine because it is not potentized much. And this is one more bit of evidence of the embarrassing ignorance of so many anti-homeopathy editors because they lump together ALL homeopathic medicines (this is the epitome of sloppy thinking and analysis...though this is not surprising when these editors are POV-pushing). Yeah, it IS that bad...and it seems that you too have been fooled, though you seem curable. DanaUllman 15:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

NTWW

On 24 May 2008, 17:00 (UTC), Not the Misplaced Pages Weekly will host a special episode on start-up Wikipedias in African languages, and other information on Misplaced Pages around the world, with special guest: Gerard Meijssen of OmegaWiki, and the World Language Documentation Centre Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikicookie

Help on Thomas G. Barnes

Help! Got an insistent editor that wants to weasel the pseudoscientific aspect of his creationist beliefs. Please assist. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

NTWW

IT's recording now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my computer is sickly at the moment so I won't be joining you. Thanks.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sickly? Try homeopathy. Water with a crushed microchip poured onto your computer should help. •Jim62sch• 19:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Imagination award

I, Renata3, award you this Imagination Award for coming up with weirdest AFG challenge situations that are extremely fun to read as they are so WikiDrama-like :) Renata (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I want them to be fun to read, and not just a chore. I also want to show how ridiculous some of these editing disputes can be.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

AGF Challenge at RfA

Hi Filll, I just started a discussion thread at RfA related to your AGF Challenge questions hereBalloonman (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Emails about a current RfA

Filll, I am in possession of an email apparently sent by you through the internal email system referring the recipient to the oppose section of a current RfA. I am sure you are aware of the guidelines against canvassing, and that a campaign of soliciting opposition to a current RfA from multiple users would be a serious breach of those guidelines. Could you confirm (a) whether you have indeed sent such message and (b) to how many users these have been sent. WjBscribe 01:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)