User talk:H/Archive 5

what the fuck

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.

Ethics of eating meat

I moved in:

• GoVeg.com Website by PETA with arguments for a vegetarian diet

And you reverted with the commend "please limit external links to sites that approuch both sides of the subject".

I find that a very odd position to take. I am no fan of PETA's and I think they are a bunch of overzelous ... well zelots. But I cant see how you can require a NPOV from links? Surely one would want equaly vehment arguments from both sides, and not just people trying to walk the middle ground. (I dont want to add the link back, I'm fighting link-creep myself - otherwise I would chat on the talk page). Just curious as to your reasoning. --Mig77^(t) 14:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I may have been in error when I did that, I will review the external link criteria and get back to you. HighInBC 16:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems I worded my objection badly. I had in mind that external links should be held to the same standard as the content of the article itself. I just reread Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided and point 2 tells me that the links should be held to the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Issues_to_look_out_for point 2 warns about sources with a strong bias or possible conflict of interest to the subject.

Phew, I guess what I am saying is I knew the link was contrary to guidelines, but my rational was flawed. A site need not deal with the subject from both sides, that was my mistake, but it does need to deal with the subject without too much bias. Thanks for pointing this out, learning is fun. HighInBC 16:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, you can link to two sites, one which deals with one side of the argument, one which deals with the other. WP:NPOV offers some help here, I think. Sometimes, it may be appropriate to link to a biased site, it's just generally something we try not to do. --Yamla 16:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think in this case it would be difficult to find the equivilent on the other side, as GoVeg is rather extreme. This is not the first time someone has removed GoVeg. But your point is valid. HighInBC 16:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Transparancy

I think that avoiding the publication of speculation about the identity of contributors in general is more important than being able to read every comment made on the site, and, that is more true in this case than in most. The edit is not deleted, so it can still be read by anybody who really goes looking for it, but I don't think that it needs to be more available than that. Jkelly 22:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response HighInBC 22:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course. For what it is worth, I would rather we didn't have to deal with any real world offsite concerns, and I'm confident that we would eventually come to the right course of action through discussion, even if it would take a while. But the truth is that we're at amazon.com levels of website popularity now, and we have to accomodate a certain level of responsibility in what we publish, even on what we think of as our internal conversation pages. Jkelly 00:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Cannabutter Philip J. Kaplan Alun Buffry Sonny Moore George P. Bush Hard and soft drugs Physiological tolerance British Legalise Cannabis Campaigns Listeria Green Dragon Drug subculture Cannabis ruderalis Luke Covell Voucher Bow shock Maui-wowie Cannabrick construction Post-exposure prophylaxis Roach clip

Cleanup Stoned Tourism in Hawaii Grow-op Merge Vaginal sex Cybersex Shafer Commission Add Sources KFC Human sexual response cycle Darwin (ESA) Wikify Sumner Academy of Arts & Science Illinois Institute of Art - Chicago Fort Richardson Expand E. E. Evans-Pritchard Kublai Khan Professional Bowlers Association

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Pi Unrolled

You commented on this animated GIF's Featured Picture nomination. I'm considering a redesign to incorporate concerns raised but I need more clarity. Please see User talk:John Reid/Pi/Unrolled#FP?. Thank you. John Reid 08:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for the work. HighInBC 14:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ooops!

Thanks for your note. I am something of a newbie here so any help and support you can offer is greatly appreciated.

Thanks again.

Wolfman97 16:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem anytime. HighInBC 16:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Deleted

I was referring to a section of the original AN/I board discussion, which Theresa Knott moved to its own discussion page; I had made some comments on the AN/I discussion but they were not on the discussion page and I'm still trawling through AN/I's history page trying to find the missing ones. As I said, I'm fairly sure this was an accident. I don't think Theresa would deliberately remove someone's comments. Heck, when I added my comments to the AN/I discussion I think I originally put them in the wrong talk section; with a page that long and convoluted, it's easy to make a mistake! Cheers, Kasreyn 21:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought perhaps you were refering to the page User:Publicgirluk, which was deleted during the debate. I personally saw that only crude vandalism was deleted and not anything pertinent to the debate. I did not want this already contentious issue be exacerbated by honest mistakes. HighInBC 22:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thought you might like to read this

User:Revolución/Statement against Jimbocracy. Once again, I feel this is needed. You might also like my own manifesto, which isn't specifically Jimbo-related. Things are out of hand here sometimes. I'm seriously thinking of leaving this project right now, but I'm going to wait a while before making any serious decisions. Too much authority in the hands of too few people who abuse it in the wrong situations, yet never use it when they should (like to block obvious socks of indefinite-blocked users on anarchism and such). Just like cops in real life--going after activists and non-violent criminals (like drug users), while letting rapists, murderers and politicians go free. What a surprise. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 04:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's some background info.[1] Tyrenius 10:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh lord, I would rather edit the wikipedia I already have. HighInBC 12:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, you've asked about Jimbo's special authority; have you seen m:Foundation issues? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, no I did not see that. I really have no looked outside of wikipedia itself. Now I know that. HighInBC 18:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

More specifically the answer to my question is this:[2], thanks for the help folks I understand now. HighInBC 18:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for and against drug prohibition

Hi, We've talked beofore on this subject, I'm glad you've got the hang of wikipedia in these past few months. Yet, you should notice that this wiki style community uses rules and regulations as a way to resolve disputes, not as a way to create them. If a dispute can be resolved directly withought adhering to strict or absolute regulations than it is all for the better. This article brings arguments, which from it's very nature, not a strict documentiation of an event. stuff like:

"Legalisation is thus likely to increase drug-taking in society and consequently have an additive effect to the existing harm."

maybe false, or "uncited", yet they also may contain the quintessential reasoning behind the rest of that passesge facts, a reasoning that represents that school of thought. you may simply put a "the reason behind this is that.." prefix. I'm not reverting anything because I do agree with your edits, its just that liberality and free speech are more important than adhering to regulations in this medium, and specifically in this context or "reason" based on the facts. if you drop the punch line the entire section may seem unfathomable.

Btw, seeing your wife's touching tale, are you a pro or a con drug man ?

Respectfully --Procrastinating@^talk2me 21:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I am trying to clean up an article gotten clogged with a bit of POV. Sometimes in my haste and boldness I may remove something of value. Thankfully the wikimedia software makes sure any mistake is reversable.

My reason for the removal of the statement "Legalisation is thus likely to increase drug-taking in society and consequently have an additive effect to the existing harm" was two-fold. The first reason is that it is a bold claim without a citation, that is not attributed to a specific source or shown to be an opinion. The second reason was the citation[3] lower in the article to the contrary of this statement.

Free speech and liberality are important, but in an encyclopedia verifiability and consistency is important too. On the talk page I was talking to an IP about some of the contradictory statements and was trying to remove them.

As for me being pro or can towards drugs, that is not really a multiple choice question. I think some drugs are great, and I think other drugs are bad. As for my opinions on prohibition I think the laws in this regard should be based on medical findings. This is irrelevent to my editing here, I am not trying to push any point of view. HighInBC 22:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

However, it cannot be denied that some people believe "Legalisation is thus likely to increase drug-taking in society and consequently have an additive effect to the existing harm", so if you can find a citation of that, you can put the punchline back in attributing it to that person/organization. HighInBC 22:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is unique, as it brings "arguments" for and against, those arguments/opinions can be supported by cited facts for the reader to make his own mind. the FACT that "some people thinkg that.." should Not be directly cited, as it is a part of the ongoing debate. Without a factual base those people could be discredited, yet the very claim, as long as it is written as a "claim", should stay. we do need to bring all possible claims, ridiculous or not. A "contraditction " in the article is an outcome of it having opposite sides! the title being "arguiments for and against.."

A claim that green invisible lepricons from space tell people that drugs are bad should Not be included even If cited, as it is not popular (and not because it is "untrue"). A claim that God has forbidden man to temper with own consciousness Should be included even if uncited (different biblical passeges have different interpretations), because it is a popular belief. true or not. the rules are there to assist us, not to govern us.

I hope I was clearer this time. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 11:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, partially. A particularly bold claim of fact such as the passage in question is not a philisophical position, or an arguement. It is a statement of cause and effect to justify and argument. I agree arguments should not need qualification in such an article, but a statement of fact used to justify an argument should. HighInBC 20:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

revrt spamming

hi, I've revrted al ledits for this day. it seems as though an IP has erased huge sectiones without you notcing, please reinsert yourr comments. (and me more carefull). Is this IP in somesort of a war with you? maybe you should invite him to join, so we can monitor him more carfully. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 12:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did notice major changes yes, but I would not call it spam as he is discussing it in the talk page. I told him to make a citation for something and now he is clearing out anything that looks unsubstanstiated. The removals are a bit over the top and need proper edit summeries. I suggest addressing 68's many concerns on the talk page.

I was going to let him finish then go through and re-add what was of value per WP:TROLL#The_value_of_slow_reverts(Added after archiving). I had already reverted him a few times and did not want to war. I would say the person is a good editor that is still learning the ropes here.

As for my comments, they are safe in the history and I am going to wait for the page to settle down. HighInBC 13:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Also I already did invite him to join on his talk page. HighInBC 14:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

good. I've temporarly blokced the pages from IP edits. hopfully this will give the "setlle down" atmosphere you're looking for. balnking whole sections, withought a proper notice or replacement is jsut plain Bad editing. we need more good writers in this article..:) --Procrastinating@^talk2me 10:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

3rd Opinion backlog

Hi. I see you removed the backlog tag from the 3rd opinion page. I'd been trying for a while to reduce the backlog, and you are right that it doesn't look like there's much of a backlog now, but I had left the tag because the oldest entry is almost a month old (10 August 2006). Even if there are only 3 or 4 entries, a month old is still a slight backlog, I would think. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 18:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I see, I though the tag was linking to an area where backlogs were kept. My mistake. HighInBC 19:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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.