Beta/NFCC
His edits were made in violation of his probation and I reverted solely on that. They could have been all edits that said "I Like Penguins", and since there were more than 25 and not proposed or approved, I would have reverted. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 13:49
- Warning and point taken :) Also, if you wish me to "stear clear" of Beta, as Metros does, ask and it will happen. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 14:01
- No worries, no offense taken on the warning. Sometimes they are necessary as a "smack in the face" when the people are going at it in these discussions. I understand how these discussions can become dramatic and testy at times....and I think I will sit them out because I think I am causing more problems then I am trying to help solve. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 14:14
User:VeblenBot/C/GAR
Why isn't the current version of User:VeblenBot/C/GAR showing at WP:GAR?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what problem you are seeing. When I compare them, the table of contents on GAR matches VeblenBot's list. Try forcibly reloading the GAR page. If that doesn't work, let me know which article on VeblenBot's list is not showing up on GAR. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Vassyana and WP:NOR
It seems you were active on WP:NOR at the time when SlimVirgin and Vassayana had what appears to be an interminable argument: almost 500 posts from Vassyana according to SlimV, which seems confirmed by [1], but SlimV also has a comparable number of edits there, and Kenosis has more. SlimV brought up Vassyana's insistence as argument against him in the election. No way I'm going to read that many diffs, so I'm asking you as a trusted third-party for a summary of what this was all about. Thanks, Pcap ping 03:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- The overall discussion, which went on for a very long time and never really was resolved, was about the relative roles of primary and secondary sources on Wikipedia. An underlying issue is that there is more than one definition of "primary source" and so different editors may enter the discussion with different ideas about which sources are primary and which are secondary. The discussion involved quite a few editors, many more than just SlimVirgin, Vassyana, and me. It went on for months.
- The discussion was often about the correct usage of primary sources, their potential for misuse, and similar questions for secondary sources. I was concerned that the language might be changed in a way that would make it harder to correctly use peer-reviewed research papers as sources in scientific articles. Other people were concerned with other potential problems for other sorts of articles.
- I don't believe that Vassyana ever claimed secondary sources are "more" likely to be biased, only that they "can" be biased. At least this is what the diffs I have seen show.
- I looked up current edit counts on toolserver, and found these total edit counts:
| Editor |
Edits to WP:OR |
Edits to WT:OR |
| CBM |
7 (tied #41) |
141 (#24) |
| COGDEN |
77 (#3) |
492 (#5) |
| Kenosis |
61 (#4) |
850 (#1) |
| SlimVirgin |
243 (#1) |
659 (#2) |
| Slrubenstein |
89 (#2) |
526 (#4) |
| Vassyana |
53 (#6) |
565 (#3) |
- Vassyana did comment at the time on the perceived frequency of his posts [2]. The full context of that thread is at [3]. I had the impression that Vassyana was participating in the conversation there in very good faith. I thought he was hoping to improve the language of the policy page and trying to help resolve the disputes that had arisen about the primary/secondary source issue. By the end of the very long discussion, everyone's nerves had frayed somewhat.
- I hope this actually addresses your question. If there's a more specific question I can address, let me know and I'll do my best. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for all the details. From the few diffs I had sampled I reached the same conclusions as you did. Pcap ping 12:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
