User talk:168.../archive2
Comments on signal transduction article
[edit]Hi 168, there has been a considerable change to the introduction to signal transduction, the information and edits are good and should be in the article at some place, but the intro has lost some coherence as a result. I wonder if you wouldn't mind having a look at my comments in Talk:Signal transduction. I know that you take quite considerable pains to maintain readability and clarity in articles, so I'd appreciate your comments and copyediting. Cheers. ---Lexor 10:24, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I guess synapse was just a little too technical for me. I never took Biology beyond the advanced placement level. -- Pakaran 01:44, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Talk:DNA
[edit][168...:] Yes, Cyan, God bless his optimistic heart, has made it clear he wants unananimity. I don't believe it will be my fault if he doesn't get it, because in the meantime minimally it will be Lir and I both who are holding the page hostage. Furthermore, I will be open to honest well-reasoned and good faith dialogue with everybody after Lir goes away.168...
- What makes you think that will happen anytime soon? Peak 07:17, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
[Peak:] As it happens, I've given that some thought too. If N people engage in a process that results in some "wikistability", then it would take N additional people to reopen the matter. Peak 22:17, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- [168:] I think I don't understand the thought you have. Any one person any time can come by and edit an unprotected page. There's no required quorum.168... 22:34, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I did not explain it very well. The key is a new concept, which I called "wikistability". An illustration may be simplest. Suppose a group of N people are debating a piece of text, but decide that they will follow a process to achieve group agreement. When the process reaches its conclusion, the N people agree that the text is "wikistable" - meaning in the first instance that they will act together to preserve it (until such time as N other people call for change). The main (and rather grandiose) idea here is that when such a process has led to Wikistability, sysops will also be bound to help enforce it. Ultimately, perhaps, respect for Wikistability would become part of what it means to be a law-abiding wikicitizen. Unless there are some fundamental changes in the handling of subvandals, this is the only real alternative I see.Peak 07:17, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
[168...] I don't see why we can't just discuss the relative merits. A small group of people letting themselves be governed by reason is liable to conclude the same thing as a large group doing the same, and the decision is likely to be reasonable.168... 16:51, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, but Cyan has gone to the trouble to explain to me in some detail why he will not make any judgements about what is reasonable.Peak 07:17, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
[Peak:] The problem is that Wikipedia's current rules and processes make it easy for any one "subvandal" to subvert any one page, even if only through indefinite Protection. Let's be a little creative, and maybe Wikipedia as a whole can benefit from our experience. Peak 22:17, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
[168...:] I think excluding Lir's is highly non-traditional and creative. Why aren't you willing to try that?
- I don't understand. I don't have the authority to make such decisions, and it seems that no amount of testimony on the Wikipedia:Problem_users page makes much difference if the problem can be described as subvandalism. I am proposing that we define a process that will ensure no-one is held hostage to subvandalism. My hope is that EITHER we will get everyone's buy-in to such a process, OR that (if there is a lone holdout regarding the definition of a conflict resolution process) Cyan will see that his current policy is encouraging subvandalism. Peak 07:17, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Brilliant prose
[edit]Please don't add that header to articles no matter how brilliant they are. It makes the article look ugly, and it is gloating on our part. Dori | Talk 18:13, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
Gloating is fun and I don't think it hurts anybody. It signals readers that the community considers the text a worthy example of a Wikipedia article, spurs them to do a good job on other articles and hopefully deter them from making hasty edits to the "brilliant" one. The Wikipedia:Brilliant prose candidates page invites people to put exactly that label in the article. That's what inspired me to do it.168... 18:26, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Taking it to Wikipedia talk:Brilliant prose candidates Dori | Talk 18:32, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
drawing and quartering and chopping up etc.
[edit]see [1]. I would ask you to restrict the topic of your comments on the talk page of DNA to the contents of that article. (I have made a similar request to Lir.) -- Cyan 20:03, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Your point is well taken. Perhaps I should have used the word "commotion" instead of "fuss", as it has fewer overtones of deprecation. -- Cyan 21:32, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Re: "a further evolution to T5.2". I didn't review the back and forth that occured when I was offline carefully enough, and versions T2 through T4 escaped my notice. Mea culpa. -- Cyan 06:26, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I will neither actively support nor actively oppose banning Lir. -- Cyan 08:02, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The real problem with Wikipedia of course is that it's so much damn fun that I can't tear myself away despite my pessimism about its long-term viability. Adam 08:40, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Lir
[edit]I share your exasperation with Lir. You may know already or has already been pointed out to you, Lir has been an ongoing problem here for at least a year. If you look at the old posts on the mailing list archive [2] you will see he was causing exactly the same kinds of problems. Lir has in fact been banned and has resurfaced under various other accounts (Vera Cruz, Susan Mason, Dietary Fiber, Pizza Puzzle). After a protracted negotiation with Jimbo, Lir (Adam Rinkleff in real life) was readmitted to the community in September (see [3]). Lir IMO is neither a simple vandal nor an idealogue but appears to have emotional problems which effect his ability to participate in this environment in a rational, constructive way. It seems to me that the protracted discussons, protected pages, etc. which result from his erratic behavior take up an enormous amount of community time which could be better devoted to more constructive activities. As for (re)banning, the process seems to glacial in speed. -- Viajero 12:33, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Hi again, I posted a message to wikien-L regarding Lir [4] after the message above. If you are interested in pursuing the matter further, why don't you join the list and discuss it? The problem with the Conflicts page is that airing grievances so accomplishes so little; there are no procedures attached to it. If you are interested go http://mail.wikipedia.org/ and go the wikien-l page. -- Viajero 21:34, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
"Also development is secondary to being (metaphorically in the language of calculus it might be called the second derivative of being)." Out of curiosity, what would the first derivative of being be in this metaphor? (I'm assuming time derivatives; is that correct?) -- Cyan 20:42, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I might have said second derivative with respect to time. I haven't thought about it hard enough to know if it's a perfectly apt metaphor, but my feeling is it's pretty good.168... 21:11, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I was kind of intrigued by the idea that there might be something between "being" and "development " in your metaphor. Too bad. ("corrigendum") -- Cyan 17:23, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
LOL
[edit]Very witty: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=List_of_conductors&oldid=2167419 -- Viajero 11:02, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Yes there is: Conductor which leads you to Conductor (material). Sorry to be a spoilsport!!! -- Viajero 19:02, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Sticklers are most welcome here -- make yourself at home.! To bad you didn't move sooner; up until about a week ago, List of Conductors was actually at List of famous conductors and you could have had the former all to yourself. However, instead of turning the latter into a disambig page (ugly!), won't do you propose on the Talk page of moving it to List of orchestral conductors? If there are no objections, you can then use List of Conductors for your own purposes. However, it will require a bit of work fixing the redirects so please only undertake this if you really do plan to expand List of Conductors into something comprehensive. -- Viajero 13:49, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You wrote: "I'd like to see a graph of the fraction of Wiki pages that are protected versus time. I bet it's going up." Actually, although the absolute number of Wiki pages that are protected is probably going up, the fraction is likely going down, due to the steady increase in the total number of Wiki pages. -- Cyan 03:34, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I doubt the steady or even exponential increase per se affects the likelihood either way (b/c there are other variables), although I confess I can't do the math in my head. Anyway, I knew what "fraction" meant when I used it, and it's obvious that the number of pages has been increasing. 168...
As you will. -- Cyan 05:15, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The NPOV tutorial contains the following advice as an edit comment:
this article should not get bigger than 8000 chars. If it does, please make it shorter!
I suggest you follow it -- the article is now over 12000 characters long. Please trim it a little, including your intro and the word ownership stuff.—Eloquence 04:57, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
Hi. I don't care about the edit wars surrounding wik & lir and others. If they happen again, the page will be protected again. In the mean time, people who want to make useful contributions to DNA and other such pages are being hindered. --snoyes 04:37, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikiquette
[edit]Hi, I reverted your changes to Wikipedia:Wikiquette, please see Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette. I hope you don't take this the wrong way as it's the second time I have reverted your changes to a page. Regards, Dori | Talk 07:03, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)
General idea
[edit]Peak, would you mind giving me a general idea of what you've studied in school and/or elsewhere? 168... 06:47, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This sounds like a trick question, but if you send me an email, I'll let you know. Why do you ask? Peak 07:12, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
[Peak:] Continued at User_talk:Peak Peak 08:18, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC) Peak 16:46, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
[Peak:] The Structural motif article has a dangling reference:
- "This example comes from the paper by Matsuda and colleagues cited below."
I think it would be safe to move the reference from Sequence motif. Peak 04:04, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
My deepest respect for your work !
[edit]Accidently i ren on your ( and every one of you , contributing this pages )- , site and truly - i'm was amazed what you did !!! Best of luck in your work and all the administrators of GOOD WIKIPEDIA ! At least 20 persons using your web pages (as a proxy server - my recommendation ).Now - what can one do for an improvement and colaboration with Wikipedia ?! I am sorry 'cause i used you for a contact - i'm didn't know , who am i suppose to write to ?!You were nu.1 !Best regards to the editorial !!! Nicholas Nenadich City of Zrenjanin State union of Serbia and Montenegro My e - mail/ nnenadic@sezampro.yu
P.S. Most of the people i know using Serbian pages of Wikipedia - well done !
Well...er...you're welcome! In case you want to spread your thanks around more, I suggest you post at Wikipedia:Village pump. Best of luck 168... 23:01, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
DNA protection
[edit]Why did you protect DNA when you were involved in an edit war over that article? We don't have many rules in regards to page protection, but that is perhaps one of the more important ones. If you would have asked me I would have protected it for you. --mav 17:52, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yes, quite. I believe Lir is the only person who has Jimbo's specific approval to edit Wikipedia. Plus, it seems obvious to me that Lir is going to pitch a fit about it, and... he'll be right. -- Cyan 18:32, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Hey, as long as you realize what you're getting into, I guess I can't complain much (although I may question your judgment). As for Jimbo, he will likely pass the buck back to the conflict resolution procedures being developed. My comment about him was just meant to point out that one of the few decrees from on high has effectively been, "You have to play nice with Lir." It's not exactly fair, but life rarely is. -- Cyan 19:05, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
RfA
[edit]Yes, I saw your post to the page. Sorry for my aggressive tone, I was just a bit annoyed at being listed there. --snoyes 19:04, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Frustrated
[edit]I don't get frustrated per se - I'm not so emotionally attached to the business of resolving the conflict that failing at it affects my serenity. Cheers, Cyan 00:10, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up at VfA, and I do apologize for my tone. (Toward you, specifically. Not toward Lir. At least not yet.) Hope we can move beyond whatever misunderstanding there may be. - Hephaestos 01:48, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You have invited me to attempt to convince you that protecting DNA was not the best possible action for the circumstances in which you found yourself. Very well, I will give it the old college try.
First, I must state your position as I understand it. You feel that Lir is a vandal, making harmful changes and then being deliberately difficult on the talk page. You therefore feel justified in treating him as a vandal, reverting his edits and protecting the page. This is your position as I understand it.
The argument that I muster against such a position is simply that the best action for the sake of your reputation must take into account Lir's standing in the community. Few people enjoy dealing with Lir during conflicts, as he is... easily offended, shall we say, and apt to be retributive. (You may have noticed his edit summary of 02:45, 5 Jan 2004 on the DNA article, which is typical of the emotions-first approach Lir takes to editing here.) But for all that, there is not a consensus that he may be treated as a vandal. Certainly some editors feel that way, but others do not. In short, there is a significant, although perhaps not overwhelming, segment of Wikipedians here who accept Lir as an editor.
It's generally considered important that sysops not to use the special privileges they have in conflicts, particularly not conflicts with non-sysops. The principle is that sysop privileges are intended to serve the purposes of the community at large, not the individual sysops. Thus, when I protected DNA, I did it on behalf of the community, and likewise when Snoyes unprotected it. I can assert these things without fear of contradiction because neither Snoyes nor I were deeply involved in the editing of the page, nor had either of us expressed strong views about the text during discussions on the talk page. Your protection, on the other hand, is not such a clear-cut case. You have clearly stated a view on what should be written in the article, and the protection you undertook to perform favoured your preferred version. The thesis that Lir is a vandal could be a justification, but it is not universally accepted, and this is the source of the damage to your reputation.
This damage is not a huge deal: enough people find Lir to be a pest that your actions may be viewed as justified by a significant portion of the community. You will almost certainly not lose your admin privileges over it. Nevertheless, the action was not above reproach; you've generated a certain amount of distrust, and similar actions in the future are now more likely to cause people to distrust you.
Now, having made that argument, I must suggest a course of action that would have been preferable, in the sense that no shadow of a doubt about the propriety of the action could have accrued to you. This course of action is simply to treat yourself as a non-sysop for the purpose of this conflict. Non-sysops in conflict must request protection from a disinterested sysop, and this is the course of action available to you which was above reproach.
(I do not require a counter-argument; if you haven't been convinced by the above, then it is likely we shall not agree about the propriety of your action after any amount of back-and-forth, and I can live with that.) -- Cyan 05:33, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In the block log, you will find evidence of both views of Lir. I don't think anyone actually defends Lir's behavior; rather, there are those who think he must be accorded respect as an editor because of due process, and those who would circumvent due process out of frustration. In short, custom decrees that it isn't for any one of us to decide when a contributor has become more of a burden than he or she is worth; that privilege has always rested in Jimbo and his designated agents. So when you treat Lir like a vandal by protecting the page against him, you violate due process. -- Cyan 06:24, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
No, no, Lir is tolerated because he was banned by Jimbo, but then had a long email correspondence with him, following which Jimbo specifically unbanned him. Hence my previous comment that to my knowledge, Lir is the only person specifically allowed by decree to edit Wikipedia. -- Cyan 06:31, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
When protecting Wikipedia from vandals, you can put on your sysop hat. If you observe an edit war but are a neutral party, then you can put on your sysop hat. If you're in a conflict with another user, you should not put on your sysop hat. That's the guideline. Now, is Lir a vandal? If yes, then you can just protect against him without violating the guideline. If no, then you can't. If the question of his vandal status, as a matter of due process (i.e. arbitration), has not yet been resolved, and you treat him like a vandal anyway, then you are violating due process. I assert that the question of Lir's status has not yet been resolved via due process, ergo I think treating him as a vandal is a violation of due process. -- Cyan 13:55, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I disagree with your arguments that I am incapable of discussion. As you can see at Talk:DNA, I have been discussing the issue with several people -- while we still disagree on points, we have been making progress. You, who were part of the edit war, you adamantly and repeatedly refuse to discuss the issue.
- Please return to the discussion. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Since Jesus was a heterodox Jew, like me, he probably would have done what I did, in my place. In your place, I suppose he would have turned the other cheek. ;-) Cheers, Cyan 17:20, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, which religion do you refer to? Feel free not to answer this personal question. -- Cyan 17:35, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thought so. That's my personal creed as well. -- Cyan 17:43, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'd settle for civility in criticizing each other's behavior, and mutual respect for each other's judgment. It seems to me we've done a pretty good job so far. If my tone ever suggests that I thought you really ought to have known better, just put it down to an egocentric human's surprise that anyone could hold a differing, but no less valid, opinion. Cheers, Cyan 18:11, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Heh heh. Fair enough ;-). -- Cyan 18:23, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
You wrote:
Cyan, by saying you question Wik's judgment, do you mean literally that you are not sure in your own mind whether Wik's judgment on these matters has been good, or do you mean, shall we say, that with all due respect you find his judgment faulty? 168... 18:51, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The latter, certainly, not the former. But Ed's right, I was just teasing him. -- Cyan 03:40, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
RfC
[edit]See above. Both I and Cyan tried to resolve this with you. That failed. The next step was RfC. --mav
Please could you leave the dispute pages alone for a while until things have cooled down. Angela. 01:44, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I thought I had. In fact I purposefully put the same message on his page before I put it on yours so you wouldn't think I was picking on you. But it's not there. I honestly have no idea why. Angela. 01:50, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. That sounds a sensible approach. Angela. 02:19, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)