User talk:H/Archive 11

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Thank you

Thank you for your support. I really appreciate it . --- ابراهيم 19:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. In my experience accusations of personal attacks and bias are far more common than occurences. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD log

Hey, I'm reverting an anon IP who has removed a link to an AFD discussion and you have taken it out again. You refer to repairing it properly but I don't see the discussion back on the list. Did I become stupid or something? --Spartaz 22:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Never mind - I see you put it back again. :)[reply]

Yup, the actual list is a bit hidden(for reasons that should now be evident), you put it into another AfD. I reverted yours, then as you saw it took me a little while to figure out how to properly repair it. Thanks for taking the time to try and fix it and warning the user in a civil but firm manner. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You missed one - Twighlight (rapper) is now missing off the list. :)
Its been fixed now. (high use page I suppose) --Spartaz 22:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page is sort of secreted away by the fact that it is stored in a log under the day name(Log/2006 November 12). This makes it alot harder for vandals(who are mostly unfamiliar with the software) to find it but also makes it hard for legitimate editors to find to repair such vandalism. Good job, I never even noticed anoter was removed, if it has not been fixed so fast I would have. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:30

I use to try to provide third opinions. Now, everytime someone lists a dispute, you always seem to deal with it before I can... keep up the good work. KazakhPol 22:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to get involved with mediation, but I thought I would start by providing opinion. I feal that some of the opinions I have given were rightfully dismissed. But I think I have provided a net gain in my use of 3O.
Please do not stop providing opinions because I do. Often it take more than a 3rd opinion to settle the matter. I often skip the subjects I have no expertise in(such as anime and furry disputes), perhaps my areas of expertise overlap with yours considerably. Thanks for the encouragement, it makes it all worth while. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a wiki on EditThis.Info

I'm triying to create a wiki called "Wikipedia 2" on EditThis.Info but it's not working. Does this mean I can't create a Wikipedia 2? --MacintoshApple 08:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is not really enough information to help you. First off it would be nice if you picked your own name, as calling yourself Wikipedia 2 may give people the false impression that you are part of the foundation projects.
As for your technical difficulties, I would really need to know more info. There are help pages on that site ect. I suggest you e-mail me using the E-mail this user button, as this is really not on topic with the encyclopedic goals of Wikipedia. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I don't want to create Wikipedia 2 anymore. --MacintoshApple 06:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

You voted Delete at the article's AfD. You may wish to make your voice heard at its deletion review. Thank you. -- Avi 21:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have done so. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Floaterfluss

In response to the "no personal attacks" thingy, I didn't know it applied to talk pages as well. Talk pages are meant to be POV, and they should stay POV. I was only joking anyway. Kthx. Floaterfluss 18:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, no worries. It does apply to talk pages. While POV is allowed on talk pages, one should attack the arguement, not the person making the arguement. In the message I sent you there was a link, no personal attacks, that detials our policy regarding such things. Also, WP:Civility deals with this. Thnks for your measured response. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chilishots

Hey Ryan, I saw you peppers on the FPC page. Quite an improvement over the existing pics (apart from the saturation thing). You could build a light tent for those kind of shots, and I'd use some plain white paper as a background (less structure). I'm fairly confident that you could improve on the quality of those shots enough to make them pass FPC. --Dschwen 11:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hehe, Thanks, the one with a group of chili's is in my friends light tent. The one of just the habanero is just overcast sunlight with a mirror for fill. The black background on the other image looked good to our eyes and we took photo's for 2 hours, then when we looked at them fullscreen we saw that black construction paper is way to textured for a dark background.
Thanks for the encouragement, I am going to keep trying. I am trying to break through that barrier between good photography and excellent. The main problem with my S3 IS is that it fully bakes the images, so I tried to adjust the saturation in camera. Next time I will look at my pics full size before taking down the setup. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

I do not think that the sentence about plagiarism from non-reputable sources is odd. I have extensively drawn ideas and inspiration from non-reputable sources and have hence plagiarized them. Andries 18:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I am saying is that if yuou cannot reference these sources then plagiarism is not the only problem, there is also a verifiability problem. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, because I only use the ideas from these sources. For example, contradictions between different sources in specific matters that can be cited to reputable sources. Andries 19:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either you use their statements directly and must cite for verifiability reasons, or you create an idea based off of their statments which is an original research violations. I can think of no way to use unreliable sources as any basis for contribution. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I use non-reputable sources extensively for ideas but I can usually cite my sources if others request me to. Yes, it may be an original research that is a completely new compilation of material all sourced to many different reputable sources. But still I challenge you and others to find original research in my edits. Andries 20:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, when there is for example not a single reputable biography on a certain person then of course the material must necessarily come from a variety of reputable sources. The inspiration for all these reputable sources and how to arrange them and the contradictions and difference between them come from non-reputable sources. Andries 20:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are talking cross purposes here. If you use a source, you must cite it. If the citation is to be used, dispite not being reliable because it is the only one available, then that must be a decision of consensus.
When you say a completely new compilation of material all sourced to many different reputable sources it sounds alot like WP:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position, which is commonly believed to be allowed, but is not. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that, but what I do is subtler and in a way cannot be avoided taking into account that there is not a scholarly biography. Andries 20:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we can simply agree to disagree. I suppose you can find information in a unreputable source, and then compile the same information from several sources, as long as you did not draw any conclusion from the information that was not in the cited sources. Regardless, I have no plan of going through your edit history. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How would you call what I do i.e. extensively borrowing ideas, citations etc. from a non-reputable source? Andries 20:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would call it a failure of WP:OR and WP:V if you did not cite the sources, and a failure of WP:RS if you did cite the sources. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did cite the sources and the sources that I cited are reliable, so I do not understand how it can be a failure of WP:RS. Andries 20:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But you said borrowing ideas and citations from non-reputable sources. Even taking citations from non-reputable sources is a bad idea, as they may be misinterpreting the citations.
If you check the citations you find in a non-reputable source, and find them reliable then you are no longer using the non-reputable source, but a different reliable one. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the times I check those citations. Andries 20:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize it, it is my opinion that extensively drawing ideas and inspiration from a non-reputable source (incl. ideas for citations to reputable sources) while not breaking WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS is in fact plagiarism of that non-reputable source. The problem with this kind of plagiarism is that it cannot be easily resolved due to Wikipedia's policies regarding reputable sources. Andries 20:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is also Wikipedia:Plagiarism to think about. Not a policy, a guideline, but it does say It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. So you should always check the citation yourself. I think this settles the problem with plagerism. But as I said, I am not overly concerned, this conversion is mostly academic for me. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey thanks for staying neutral during the discussion on Chicken and Rice, I have just added several more citation, and removal all orginal research. Valoem talk 19:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I have said it before and I'll say it again: In my experience accusations of personal attacks and bias are far more common than occurences. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad al-Durrah

Hi, I noticed you often provide third opinions. There is an ongoing dispute on Muhammad al-Durrah regarding the pov of two different version of the page. I would really appreciate another opinion on this. Thanks, KazakhPol 01:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am now beginning to commence to start to look at it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I took a short second look. Can you please provide me with diffs that depict the dispute? Also which section in the rather contentious article's talk page contains your previous attempts to resolve this dispute with the other editor(s)? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may have noticed that I respond often to third opinions. But have you noticed I respond mostly to requests that clearly indicated the location and manner of the dispute? I usually pass over the requests where I have to dig over piles of talk to find the actual dispute.
Help me help you. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice!

ThX for the welcome Simpleerob 05:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, if you need any help here, just ask. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space Tree

After discussing the matter with Humblefool, I've removed the speedy tag from Space Tree. It looks like Keentoons, which is a part of Keenspot, probably meets criterion 3 of WP:WEB, and since the article mentions it's hosted on Keentoons, that seems like an assertion of notability to me. If you disagree, you're welcome to ask another administrator for review, tag the article for proposed deletion, or take the matter to AfD. --Slowking Man 08:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I have never heard of Keentoons, so I did not know it was an assertion of notability. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:H/Archive_11"