User talk:Fastfission
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You can leave me messages here and things like that. Old messages have been moved to the Talk Archive. Really old messages are at my archives from 2004 and 2005.
Contents |
[edit] A problem with probable sock puppets
Hi Fastfission, I know you are an experienced editor and a WP administrator. That’s why I am here asking for advice, and maybe more direct assistance, (if possible).
Do you remember *this discussion*? I believe that user:Arbeiter, the original author of that text, has been using the accounts user:DixiePixie and user:Witch-King as sock puppets. (Witch-King and DixiePixie are both new accounts whose main purpose in Wikipedia appear to be agreeing with Arbeiter's POV on discussions and edits related with articles such as Biblical cosmology and Biblical literalism.) I have just confronted him at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical development of physical cosmology, but I don’t know how I should proceed from now. Can you check those accounts to see if you agree with my interpretation? I would very much appreciate an outside opinion on that discussion page, and it would be a relief if a more experienced user can take charge of dealing with that probable violation of WP policies. However, even something as simple as an advice would be great. Best wishes. --Leinad ¬ 
»saudações! 05:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- PS: Maybe one of the most suggestive things to notice is that the account Witch-King was created just a few hours after the content move[1] that caused the discussion I am currently involved with. After a some apparently random edits, Witch-King proceeded in trying to undo the move of the content created by Arbeiter. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 06:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- You both share an edit history regarding at least one of the accused contributers. However, it is mainly due to the fact that Leinad-Z took his allegations directly to you instead of going through an established process that I ask that you recuse yourself completely from this investigation. I have already posted a request for randomly appointed administrator here. I offer my apologies if you have already spent time on the investigation. I just noticed the accusations today. --DixiePixie 19:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Honestly I don't really have time to look into this in detail at the moment and take no position in it. We have places for discussing sockpuppet accusations (see Wikipedia:Checkuser). --Fastfission 01:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Newspaper
Thanks for your offer to help. You have email. - Mgm|(talk) 21:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Little Boy
Fast Fission, please contact me. John Coster-Mullen
[edit] The X Club
If memory serves me well, you recommended Janet Browne's pair of Darwin biographies: she seems to skip about a bit in terms of sequence of dates, but gives lots of nice detail. When alerted to an article about the X Club and trying to fill it out a bit, I found that she has Huxley founding the club after Darwin gained the Copley medal, while Desmond and Moore give more dates including the date of its first meeting, and say that the club's first action was to push through Darwin's nomination. Any idea which is right? ... dave souza, talk 14:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Robert Oppenheimer
You have done good work in the article but it still can be improved. I hope can see that I am trying to do the same thing you are: create the best possible article about Oppenheimer.
In one of your edits, you said "replacing quote -- the citation was there though it was entered long before we had a <ref> system". I'm don't see what the <ref> system has to do with it. Before <ref> came along, it was still expected to include a citation in the text, and not just list sources in the References section. For example, the Harvard system was one of the recomended systems. Something like "(Seagrave 1964)" should have been included in the text to indicate what exactly the Seagrave reference was supporting.
This not only helps the Wikipedia to demonstrate its reliability as a reference, it also helps other editors understand where different facts come from, so that we don't have to guess what was written in the Washington Post in 1964.
Beyond the lack of clear citations, I think the Legacy section is also in need of slight copyediting to pull it together to present a coherent message. I am trying to do that, but since I don't know where the various statements derive from, I'll have to make some changes, and even simplify some of the existing statements to conform to references I do have access to (Bird & Shirwin, Kimball Smith and Weiner, and online sources). Meantime I'll add {{cite-needed}} where appropriate per your request.
--The Photon 03:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fair Use Debate
Hi Fastfission - thanks for the level-headed comments about the Fair Use issue on official portraits, etc. I'm sorry if I've been arguing extremes on this issue - I would like a free-content Wikipedia, but I also realise that for many politicians and public figures in Australia it's almost impossible to get a free image of them and the fair use ones will just have to make do until we can get one (which will take a very long time). Our Copyright Act in Australia got changed last year after the Free Trade Agreement with the US and has made our copyright expiry for pictures now 70 years instead of 50, which means that almost no images will be released for copyright in the next 18 years or so. I hope you can see the difficulties we have, which I don't think some other users understand. I think the policy that's been introduced in the last week or two has got out of hand, and I'm happy to help you support any changes to it that make it a bit more sensible, whilst still supporting WP's free content ideal. Please let me know how I can help. JROBBO 22:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to see somebody else is fed up with the insanity of the "fair use" policies advocated by the band of merry whatever they ares that have taken up residence at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. I'm with you on the sighing, though, as well - I don't see what can be done. There's a big group of them there, and there doesn't seem to be any clear way to dislodge them. As you note, the current set-up leads to ever-increasing restrictions on use of non-free images in wikipedia, andno restriction, however ridiculous, can ever be removed. It's incredibly frustrating. john k 16:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Henry Moseley article
Hi
I checked the history of the article on Henry Moseley and found that about 2 years ago you included as a reference the biography by Heilbron.
If you still have access to this book, there is one fact I wonder if you would mind checking for Wikipedia. Last week (Oct.27) someone inserted the statement that he was the youngest of 22 children. I was tempted to remove this as vandalism, but I hesitate because it just could be true - after all, Mendeleev really was the youngest of 14 children according to my chemistry text. So the facts need checking for Moseley, and our local library does not have Heilbron or anything else useful.
Whether the statement is true or false, I think it would be useful to insert the correct statement ("youngest of 22", "only child", or whatever) with a reference to Heilbron and the page. That should settle the question.
Dirac66 20:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Good place for informing the computing community...
If it is NOT a good place for informing the computing community of a way to help eliminate some of the problems in the computer industry with one of its major players then perhaps this is not realy a computing community at all. 71.100.6.152 13:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Evolution image
Hi, I see you quickly changed my photo without a consensus. If you want to change the photos to a better quality, so they are not washed out looking that will be fine, but leave the dates in. If you can figure out a way to do this, while including the dates, then do so; if not than please do not modify my uploaded images. You can see here: User:Sadi Carnot/Sandbox6 that I toyed with a "gallery" but it didn't look good, so I copied the images, texted them, then scanned them, and then re-uploaded them. If you know how to do this (with the text) as I had it then feel free; for now I will revert. Thank you: --Sadi Carnot 14:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dysgenics
Would you mind taking a look at the dysgenics talk page? Three people are pushing for its deletion, I'm getting nowhere near consensus, and it's probably going to escalate into an edit war soon. What the article seems to need is more sources, consensus that the current sources are valid, and possibly some pov edits. --Zero g 17:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] FPC
Congratulations! A picture you uploaded, Image:NTS Barrage Balloon.jpg, has been nominated for Featured Picture over at Featured Picture Candidates. You can come to participate in the discussion and vote here. --NauticaShades 21:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Albert Einstein
Do you have a last comment on the FAR (Wikipedia:Featured article review/Albert Einstein)? Any improvement? I want to be careful before closing it, because it's a highly frequented page. Marskell 07:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
