User talk:Fred Bauder

From Wikinfo

Jump to: navigation, search

Leave a note at the bottom:

Contents

Voided out pending coding fix

Notes

External links

Archive

User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 1 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 2 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 3 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 4 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 5 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 6 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 7

Personal notes

National Check Point Policy

To do

"http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/opinion/28krugman.html

To remember

King James Version of the Bible

This should be renamed Authorized Version ... It's a British translation & should therefore be given under its usual British name. Peter jackson 11:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather have two articles, one under each name. One in British English, one in American English, with emphasis on matters peculiar to each country as it relates to that translation. Fred Talk 12:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I see you really are into multiple articles. As noted above, I'm concerned that that mayn't be sustainable in the long term, with some subjects being liable to produce an enormous number of articles, with consequent difficulties for the reader. Freedom of speech, if we're not careful, can become a quite effective way of suppressing the truth, simply by burying it in the midst of a mass of falsehood.
On this particular topic, I see we actually have 2 articles (at least):
  1. King James Version of the Bible
  2. Authorized King James Version
This hardly makes any more sense than what I originally saw: for a British translation we have an American article & a neutral (?) one. Peter jackson 10:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Fully elaborated, it will make sense. The King James version is much treasured by American fundamentalists. Again, a half dozen articles are not a problem. And yes, a blizzard of words is very effective at diverting attention from accurate information. However, as an editor, put some effort into creating a short prominent article which sets forth the significant facts. Wikinfo:Significance is policy. Fred Talk 13:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I was actually referring to a blizzard of articles in this context. To return to the earlier example, you imported the Wikipedia article on Apocrypha. What's so special about Wikipedia? One could just as well introduce similar material from any number of
  1. general encyclopaedias
  2. encyclopaedias of religion
  3. encyclopaedias of Christianity
  4. books about the Bible
  5. ...
giving each a separate article. That would seem to have just as much justification as your action (of course most sources would have to be reworded to comply with copyright law). What I'm saying is, look at the long-term implications of your policy.
To come back to the present topic, we could of course have 3 articles: British, American & neutral. Is that what you're suggesting? Peter jackson 12:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A "NPOV" article from Wikipedia is useful as a comparison. (Although there is no reason to not just encourage the reader to just go there and look at it, which we do with our header. Our scheme would permit articles about the Bible from any religious perspective which finds it relevant, and permits importation of any text that is open source or in the public domain, so the (old) Catholic Encyclopedia or the King James Version of the Bible could be imported as text and commented on from any perspective, see Wikinfo:Source texts. Whether any particular thing in your list is imported depends on whether someone who edits here feels it is useful. Wikipedia is special, if only as a de facto restatement of the canon of knowledge, a floor... Fred Talk 14:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you think so highly of Wikipedia why are you here? It can be very good on straightforward matters of scientific fact, but anything it says on anything controversial like religion or politics isn't to be trusted. There's no effective procedure for resolving content disputes & enforcing NPOV. What you end up with is a sort of compromise among those editors committed to working on a particular article, & there's no reason they should be representative of expert opinion. For example, most people working on Buddhism articles are followers of some faction or other of Western Buddhism, so the Buddhism articles tend to be fairly representative of that, but they're only a small & fairly unrepresentative fraction of the total world Buddhist population. Presumably Christianity articles tend to give a fairly accurate presentation of Catholic, evangelical & liberal positions, but less of Orthodox & atheist ones. Peter jackson 17:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I was one of the Wikipedia arbitrators. I support resolution of the problems of Wikipedia that you mention. Fred Talk 18:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
As do I. It has a far larger audience, so I'd much prefer to do most of my work there, if the system would protect it from censorship & falsification by propagandists. Wikinfo would still be important for original research, of which I've already put some here, which I couldn't do there of course.
Seem to have forgotten to sign the above. Peter jackson 09:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Email

Hi Fred, I'm just writing to confirm that you got the email I sent. I ticked the box for sending me a confirmation, but it never came, so I wasn't sure if it got sent. --AaronCarson 17:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I must have buggered it up somehow. I rewrote it in outlook and sent to the address you posted on my talk page. I guess the system doesn't save a draft? I couldn't find anything. Anyway after you read it, just imagine it's a little better, and then you'll know what the first one was like :) AaronCarson 21:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Take care

Please do not revert edits without giving a thorough explanation on the discussion page as you did here [5], [6],[7] as it eradicates good faith. I kindly ask that you discuss your edits on the talk page. Thank you. Gideon‑ X-.

I have left you a message on my discussion page. Thank you. Gideon‑ X-.

Is it me or did you just copy Dark Lord's request to you a few days ago? I'll check the history of his edits to see exactly where he claimed this, but I think it's at the Administrators' Notice Board too. Please stop weasle-wording your way around Wikinfo. --Anime addict 17:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Strange categories

I've recently imported Sailor Moon from Wikipedia, and I see some strange categories. Example: Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2004 | All articles containing potentially dated statements | Articles containing potentially dated statements from May 2005 | etc. Does this help at... anything, if not here, at least on Wikipedia? Is there a way to remove them from articles? They look kinda sloppy. --Anime addict 17:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit them out unless they make sense. Actually, they do, as articles which contain dated material is a big problem here. Perhaps we should make a category Category:Imported in 2009 and add it to Template:Wiki to date when an article is imported, so we would know it might need updating with current information.
That's the problem, they seem to be embeded in some template and I don't really know which one. I see on Wikipedia they're invisible on the article, it would be a good compromise, but like I said, I don't know in which format they're included. It may be in the {{reflist}} one, but I'm not sure... --Anime addict 18:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Request move.

Request move of criticisms and theories on Yahweh to just Theories on Yahweh, as I have already made an article about actuall criticism on Criticism of Yahweh (I notice the title is bad too), and because there is actually no real criticism in that, only basically more theories on the pronounciation of the name, which also has an article. Thank you in anticipation. --Dark Lord 22:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Request protection

I would like to request protection of a article I created, since edits on another criticism article was reversed. I have reminded you to do this on the Village Pump page and Admins noticeboards: http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Wikinfo:Village_pump#Protection] Thank you. Gideon‑ X-

Cleanup

Now that it's done with, I'd like to request cleaning up the mess(es) Gideon (talk • contribs) made around here.

Also, I'd suggest sysop-ing Dark Lord (talk • contribs), to help me out with that or to do it as he sees fit in the case I won't have the time or proper knowledge. It'd also be poetic justice after all that happened. --Anime addict 18:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Seconded.AaronCarson 21:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

SPOV

I've been thinking about something you said above, about deleting erroneous information. Would I be right to assume that we're supposed to follow the Wikipedia maxim, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions; do not assert tyhe opinions themselves"? That in fact SPOV is just about the selection of such facts? Peter jackson 09:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It is about selection of facts, facts which support opinions. See for example http://www.truth.sg/resources/DavidEngelsmaKJV.pdf (Just an example). See also http://www.truth.sg/resources/1981bpsynod.htm Notice that that website has the same problem with character sets that we do with � showing up at odd places. Fred Talk 13:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The way I understand SPOV, you can claim anything that is remotely truthfull and as positive as you can about a situation, item, person etc. That is, even opinions about the opinions, sourced widely or accepted by maybe a handful of people or even only by the editor.
Anything else is moved to the CPOV page. "Erroneus" is still a subjective term, and not related with SPOV. For example, if you say something widely known or by common sense observed as ugly as hell is actually beautiful, it is erroneus, yet still SPOV. I think erroneus information can be deleted if it widespread believed to be that, and that are no defenders of the theory, or could just be mentioned that is erroneus and it was believed in certain times by certain people, but I really don't know where that would fall (for example, is it more useful to a subject to be mentioned about an idea in it's favor that was proven false, or does this destroy it's credibility?), depends on the circumstances I guess. --Anime addict 13:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The matter can be viewed as advocacy, see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/washington/31scotus.html a New York Times' article about the exclusionary rule. Fred Talk 13:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary templates

Got any idea what happened with the Wiktionary translation templates, like at Moisture? They worked fine a couple of weeks ago, from what I remember. --Anime addict 01:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Adapted from the Wiktionary article "moisture" http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=moisture&oldid=3333264 released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2" is not a template, being simply written out. Fred Talk 05:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

My appologies.

I am sorry if I disrupted in any way the content of the article Soul. It was not my intention, I assumed the old article was deprecated. --Dark Lord 02:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Something strange was happening there. Page blanked. Fred Talk 02:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for not taking offence. Good day to you. --Dark Lord 02:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

RAW

I'd need this article imported here please Fred, if you're so kind, I'm not sure if it's anything worth it from the discussion on the AfD, but I'd rather start an article about it with some basis from Wikipedia, as long as it was started there. --Anime addict 00:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, at least I got to see it. Now that I know what it's about, I think I'm gonna split my efforts in RAW (anime) and RAW (manga), so to be pure OR and because that article really is pretty... blind-sided at best. But thanks again :-) --Anime addict 14:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing sources

Hi. Thanks for the note, Fred. I assume that you meant to say "It is seldom appropriate..." Goethean 15:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, occasionally sources are bad or poor and should be removed. Fred Talk 18:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The Neo-Capitalist Manifesto

Hi, hope you enjoy editing here. You say that upload failed. I have seen no trouble with uploads. Could you tell me what you tried to upload and what happened. Fred Talk 13:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it's definitely not working, could be the university central proxy. I'll email you the content if that's okay. (Ned14 13:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

Changed last message

Hope you don't mind, but it was a little harsh. Besides, I'm pretty sure it's gonna be a lot harder cleaning up all I imported through that batch-uploader :))

I told the guy about this place, that fact that he's ready to add should be a reason to encourage him, while showing him the steps a little more gently. --Anime addict 17:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible problem

I corelated some stuff with a new user here and I've found this:

and an article of this user that doesn't strike me as reliable. I think it's a troll. --Anime addict 23:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it. Fred Bauder 00:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow

Great tool for vandals you found! Can you do the same to this user, or at least my user & talk page history? Thanks. --Anime addict 19:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see I have the tool too. --Anime addict 19:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What the heck is going on at Wikinfo. I checked the recent changes. That is disgusting. I see you are on top of it. What can I do to help?WHEELER 22:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to block the user but I just figured it out that if you do, 20 more entries or more are made. This man is viscious and has a bot program. He is hooked into the software somehow.WHEELER 22:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I am very sorry for not continuing. I had to get ready for work and the computer kept on getting an error and I couldn't get on. My sincere condolences on this incident. I hope it will not be repeated and we have better ways of combatting this in the future. I see that you have stayed up and deleted the stuff. Thank you for your hard work, patience, and fortitude in that mess.WHEELER 22:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

GRAWP is a hard teacher, but the main lesson he teaches is that not only is resistance not futile; it is the point. Fred Bauder 22:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting the deletion of a page

Hello. I wrote an essay called The Great Truth. I am requesting the permanent deletion of this essay, for personal reasons. I doubt that anyone has read it, so its absence will not be a big deal. Thank you. Siddharth Patil 01:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Done Fred Bauder 01:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

New user log

Have you seen the new user log? It's nothing but spambots (besides myself of course; I had to create a new account to type this). I would recommend installing a captcha immediately. Zollipop 03:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Page blanked

I tried to update the Barack Obama article from "president-elect" to "president" and it blanked the page...undo wont work and cut and paste from an earlier revision won't work either. Just letting you know.--Sallicio 19:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It does that if it is over 64k. I keep looking for the cause. Fred Bauder 00:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just came here to tell you that. --ideogram 06:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Aha, I see that it works if you edit sections so that no single edit buffer is larger than 64k. You might want to announce this somewhere. --ideogram 06:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling us that. The basic method of dealing with the problem is to break the article into sections of less than 64k. That is a righteous thing to do anyway. Fred Bauder 12:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Slow

It seems edits take a long time to process. Is there anything you can do about this? --ideogram 07:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've done quite a bit, but doing more makes the site unavailable to the public. Fred Bauder 12:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Second chance

I think Athelfirth deserves a second chance, he didn't understand too much about Wikinfo, but I'll try to explain it to him a little better. Also, as a person known around the Romanian anime forums, and one who has nothing against having his own article here, I think he does deserve them. I'd suggest modifying the block for a week or so while I'll try to explain better how things work here, and then give him a second chance.

I also think the simplest way to deal with those issues is to just delete the "Falcon" article and get things over with, because obviously it brings trouble, and not Athel's misguided, but good faith edits. I'm taking responsibility for that article and its deletion, so we won't loose a potentially productive editor. Thank you in advance. --Anime addict 16:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Norway

Could you update our article here on the country, please? The one at Wikipedia is 80 kilobytes long, and I don't really know how to make it in part 1, part 2 etc. like you. --Anime addict 16:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikia

Hi Fred, you should talk to the owner(s) of Wikia to fix their interwiki link, in the sense that, if you interlink something from them using :wikinfo:link, they send you to http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=link , which turns into automatic 404. That or fix some coding here so it redirects to the right article. --Anime addict 18:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Import

Wikidot, please. --Anime addict 16:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


I'm baaaack

Hi Fred. I kind of burned out on wiki work about a year and a half ago, but I'm starting to dabble a little again. Looks like I still have the admin bit, so I'll try not to wreak any havoc. Hope everything has been well with you. - Crockspot 02:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Spam users

I think these spam users are just bots (just see nicks, they're in the form "first name + letter + second name + letter") and should be directly blocked. The fact that they manage to activate their mail weeks after they make the users, and that they don't spam random articles, but just their own page, doesn't mean it's not just a bot. --Anime addict 13:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

AniDB

Could you import the article AniDB for me, please? I don't understand why they deleted it without even a discussion, it's one of the best out there. Anyway, thanks and sorry for the bother. --Anime addict 23:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

List of anime

I'd like this imported for its database worth, thanks! --Anime addict 18:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Oversight

Hello. I've tried to make a point of becoming active here once again. Do you mind if I have the oversight tool? I am familiar with how it works from my own personal setup of the extension on my wiki. Thanks, and Kind Regards, Maximillion Pegasus 22:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

When you're more active. Fred Bauder 02:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good. Maximillion Pegasus 13:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. King regards, Maximillion Pegasus 13:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/User_talk:Fred_Bauder"
Personal tools