Thanks for dealing with MNH
- Twas a pleasure. I wonder what comes next, he surely must think I'm biased against him now that I've had the cheek to protect one of his edit-warring playgrounds and remove his misplaced comment. Oh well. Have fun. Kosebamse 19:03, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)~
re: Tall ship
Moin! I would have loved to give more info on this ship, alas, I don't even know its name. However, I did read the article, and yes, it is a tall ship in the sense defined in the article. The caption is not some bowdlerized mistranslation from "Grosses Segelschiff"... :-). (The picture was taken in July 1976 at the ship parade in NYC harbor at the United States Bicentennial festivities. The NOAA calls it a "tall ship", and did you notice all the cadets on the rigging?) Lupo 10:24, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Your request prompted me to search a bit further, and I now believe this ship to be the "Amerigo Vespucci", an Italian tall ship. Cf. , , , , , and in particular . As the Amerigo Vespucci even participates in the Cutty Sark Tall Ships' Race, the picture is even more appropriate than I had thought. Lupo 11:22, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I also thought that it could be the Amerigo Vespucci (which I had visited once, ca. 1989 in Bremerhaven), but did not find her in the database at , so I had some doubts. If you have all these links, why not put some of them into appropriate places on Wikipedia? I have long been planning to make articles for many of the surviving large sailing ships but it did not turn out so far. Would you be interested in some kind of cooperation for this? Kosebamse 13:41, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Good idea. In fact, I have already started on an article on the Amerigo Vespucci (it's still on my hard disk). I'll work on it some more tonight before posting it. And I'll have to figure out what's best for disambiguating it from Amerigo Vespucci: up-front disambig page and fix links? Or leave the main page and add "alternate meaning: Amerigo Vespucci (ship)"? What do you think? Lupo 13:56, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I guess both would work. There is a guideline somewhere on naming conventions for ships, so it would probably help to look up what the new article should be titled. Unfortunately I currently have very little time for wikipediing, but if you'd like to start something about tall ships (perhaps a List of large sailing ships, possibly divided by newly built ones like the "Lilli Marleen" and old ones), I will be happy to help. I also may have some pictures from the tall ships' parade at Travemünde last summer, but am not sure if they are digitized. Another plan of mine is to write something about the Flying P Liners (Passat, Pamir, Potosi, Pommern, Preußen etc), but perhaps one should begin with articles about specific ships and a list of these. Kosebamse 14:13, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Please, no list! My experience with lists in Wikipedia has been that they are often not maintained, out of date, incomplete, or just plain silly. Manually generated or maintained lists are nonsense, especially when they're incomplete: if there's a list of 17 types of, say, leukemia, the unwary visitor will assume that these are all there are, even if in reality there were hundreds. Lists in WP should be generated automatically: have a mechanism to tag articles with keywords (limit that to a very few), generate lists from that, and automatically add a header saying that the thus generated list of foos contains only foos described in WP. Could be a beefed-up "What links here" mechanism. But I disgress.
- Having a list on some temp page as a working tool to keep track of the ships one has already done is fine, of course. (I'm still disgressing.)
- Have a look at Amerigo Vespucci (ship). It's a first draft — I'll worry later about where it should go (well, actually I think it should stay there), where to link it, whether to add a small "factbox" (aka taxobox) somewhere (I don't like factboxes too much, but I fear if I don't add one, some factbox geek will insist on having one, if only to show off his HTML formatting skills), etc. (The two "see also" links are there on purpose: I have the feeling that tall ship won't remain a redirect to Cutty Sark Tall Ships' Race much longer... :-)
- Lupo 23:08, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
My compliments, that's a great article! If we only had more editors of your skills, the quality-of-articles discussion would vanish in a puff of smoke. Regarding lists, I agree that they are useful for working out a field of interest, but not necessarily afterwards. And factoboxes - well I think they are helpful with things like sailing ships. In which case they should contain, for example: type of rigging, year built, tonnage, dimensions, former owners&names, number of crew, and not much more. What do you think? Kosebamse 14:17, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
PS. I'll make a link to your article on the front page. :-) Kosebamse 14:20, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Gee, thanks! I hadn't noticed the main page link until I read your answer—it's cool.
- A small factbox might be allright. I don't have the time now, maybe you could do one? (Also, I have no idea yet where to put it: the layout of the page will need to be rethought if the box is stuck in the upper right corner.)
- If we're going to do more, I think we should plan this properly. For instance, there are other Tall Ships' Races besides the Cutty Sark Tall Ships' Race. ("Tall Ship 2000" for instance—the Amerigo Vespucci didn't participate at the "Cutty Sark" precisely because she took part in "Tall Ship 2000" across the Atlantic.) Maybe even the explanation given for the phrase "Tall Ship" on the Cutty Sark Tall Ships' Race page could make a separate article, albeit a small one.
On a related note: there's a great web site on the Gorch Fock. But so far I haven't yet found any non-copyrighted useful pictures. (The mentioned site appears to be copyrighted.) You wouldn't happen to know whether the Bundesmarine happens to have images of her on the web or what their copyright policy is?
- Lupo 15:56, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Found the answer on my questions above myself. I have created User:Lupo/scratchpad to hold resources for this ship business; feel free to add other ships, links, or comments. Lupo 21:43, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Page protection, tall ships, etc.
I just came here to ask if there should be a "page protected" notice or something on iridology, I guess you're a sysop if you had the power to edit it. But, as I opened this page I saw things about tall ships... excellent! I was writing an article on Charlestown, Cornwall and ran into a spot of bother with the definition of tall ships. I've always heard the ships owned by  (Kaskelot, Earl of Pembroke & Phoenix) described as tall ships, but I'm doubtful that they are used in racing at all (I may be wrong on that score though). And also the Maria Asumpta  which I had the privilege to take a tourist tour on before she was wreaked. I'm hopelessly confused now about what a tall ship actually is, so if any of you can clear it up for me, I'd very much appreciate it. :) fabiform | talk 07:07, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC) PS I also read the Amerigo Vespucci article earlier because it was on the front page... beautiful ship.
- You are right, the notice should have been there, just added it. The wonderful Amerigo Vespucci (ship) article is mostly by Lupo, and as you can see above, we are discussing how to best write some more about other ships. I don't know myself what a "tall ship" is (although I been aboard of some). For example, I have never seen the "Nobile" being called a tall ship. Is that because she did not participate in this or that race? I just don't know. Perhaps that term is just too vague and/or promotional to be useful? Kosebamse 07:29, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Wik/Kosebamse discussion: Hi Kosebamse, I copied the letters with diacritic signs from your userpage to mine, because i never remember how to write them. I hope you don't mind. Tenar (User:Lady Tenar) thanks!
Tall ship again
- Yeah, that looks good. If there are redirects or links to fix, I will be happy to help. Kosebamse 12:33, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I had checked "What links here", but hadn't thought of looking for new places to create links at. Thanks to you (and Fabiform) for doing it! Lupo 13:03, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thank You !
Just a small word to say thanks for the four recent edits of iridology, Kosebamse. They are highly valued in such a melting pot where so many vegetables once cooked and where the lid vibrated so unceremoniously. Please continue. I would have every man write what he knows, and no more. Sincerely, irismeister 17:00, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)
Oranization of anatomical articles
Thanks for your comment at my user page on the adrenal gland article. I considered several reasons before I made those fairly complex changes. The adrenal cortex article was nearly a year old, but to learn all of the information available in Wikipedia about the adrenal cortex, especially that of a frog, one had to go to the adrenal gland article and read some adrenal cortex information there, and then return to collate it with the information on the cortex page. I know the adrenal gland article is a bit short, but there were separate articles there anyway, with most of the information about the adrenal cortex in the adrenal gland article, and redundant information throughout. The bottom line is that an adrenal gland article that includes both cortex and medulla is only accurate in regard to mammallian adrenal glands. In fish and in amphibians, they are sepearate organs. We tend to be more familiar with the concept of "adrenal gland" but the two parts of of the human adrenal gland have unique functions. It was in the study of the interaction of those functions that I came across the empty article for adrenal medulla. Since eventually every body part will eventually have an article, it make sense, at least to me, to go with the most detailed description of each part in the most topologically specific article. For me and probaly for some others, it is a bit easier to learn the catacholamines when they are isolated on one page rather than when they are mixed in with a list of glucosteroids and sundried other anatomical details.
This same problem of anthorcentrism is a factor in the brain page, and generally throughout Wikipedia's anatomy and physiology articles. They are written and organized primarily to describe human anatomy, with seldom any explanation to place human anatomy in the context of animal/vertebrate/mammallian/human evolution. In the brain article, I am looking for enough inforation about comparative zoological neuroanatomy to fill out that article and move most of the stuff I contributed about the human brain off to a suggested page on the human brain. In the brain articles, I am working toward producing articles about specific gyri which include detailed functional anatomy and Brodmann Areas. First I needed to get some experience with organizing anatomy articles, and learn to use organizational conventions in a subject that is a bit better developed and easier to reasearch. Likewise, with the adrenal articles - I am reading and re-reading those pages with an eye to contributing more, but first I needed to organize what is there so new information could be placed in an accurate sequence, get rid of redundancy and understand what is already here, which was not easy for me with information on the cortex and medulla spread across three pages. Now information is concentrated at the level of detail described in the article title.
Finally, linking into articles with more specific detail is the standard approach to classifying information in Wikipedia, an it is an excellant way to approach the study of anatomy. If the only concern is making the articles more than two paragraphs long, I suggest that does not weigh as heavily as properly classifying information in articles that are already represented throughout Wikipedia as links, as are Adrenal cortex (14 links not counting my user links) and Adrenal medulla (9 links not counting my user-related links). And one further note, if we establish a trend against developing detailed anatomical descriptions at the smallest level, the point at which we stop subdividing and explaining available information becomes an arbitrary product of an ad hoc wiki collective of the day rather than an accurate representation of available knowledge. I hope this helps you better appreciate the value of a heirarchical approach when detailing animal anatomy. SoCal 15:55, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Hi SoCal, thanks for your thoughtful comment - my answer is on your talkpage. Kosebamse 19:02, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)~
- I agree with you SoCal, but why is your talk page locked? Bensaccount 23:47, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hi Kosebamse. This is about the List of physiology topics: respiration page. It is a very long name, it doesnt follow standard format, and there is only one page that links to it. It it going to become a redirect to respiration (physiology). For further details see talk: List of physiology topics: respiration. Bensaccount 23:05, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I noticed your protection of state terrorism. User:VeryVerily consistently instigates ideological edit wars. Please see my comments at User talk:Tannin where I describe the very same issue (in response to the second page protection of mass murder). Notice that he doesn't feel the slightest bit compelled to write a single sentence defending his actions on the talk pages of both mass murder and state terrorism. Although both pages have been protected, he resumes the same actions that cause edit wars whenever he finds out that the users who have had to protect these very same days earlier are offline. This user is a growing problem. 172 13:30, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
"my contribution to German/Polish naming controversy.... now flame me, revert me, call me a vandal and a troll - anybody" - I liked it, you nationalistic, egotistic, reactionary gramlin, you! Space Cadet 16:45, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Anthony Di Pierro
Please stop adding comments to my talk page. Anthony DiPierro 17:17, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- This is a Wiki. While userpages are more or less considered private property, talk pages are free for anybody to edit. Removing other people's entries without comment looks like an act of hostility. Kosebamse 17:21, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
In need of a second opinion
Plese see: Talk:Moscow Peace Treaty (1940).
I am not asking for support. I am asking for a second opinion by someone whom I have a great deal of respect for in advance.
...now, it might turn out that you in reality are a crypto-Stalinist, in what case my request was in vain (since I don't respect Stalinists' views on WWII in general and the Fenno-Sovietic wars in particular). ;-))
--Ruhrjung 01:17, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I am not exactly an expert in 20th century history, particularly not with respect to Soviet - Finnish matters, but will offer an opinion on that talk page. Thanks for asking. Kosebamse 05:17, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I'll sure have a look there, but please note that I have been involved with the German-Polish controversies before, protecting several pages in edit wars and also trying to mediate in one particularly nasty conflict. It looks as if our belligerent fellow Wikipedians may need some more babysitting in the future and I might wish to stay away from disputes over content so that I may act as a neutral party when necessary. Best, Kosebamse 12:11, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- My thought, exactly. But I didn't know if the expulsion page was on your mental monitoring list (which I, of course, could have expressed somewhat more clearly - in the context of second opinion, it might have seemed differently - damned foreign languages!).--Ruhrjung 12:56, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Hi Ruhrjung, I have looked through article and talk page and I am afraid there is still a lot of basics to be checked before the article can be improved. I believe one main problem is the quality and source of the numbers. It would help a lot if the parties involved would first agree on which sources for numbers of persons killed and deported are acceptable to everybody. It would be highly desirable to find some independent, scientifically reviewed, source of data - as long as people argue along the lines of "there's a web page that says..." every further discussion will probably be futile. And the map discussed is obviously below every acceptable standard - the very least to expect of such a map would be a clear indication of years of acquisition and loss for every single territorial entity, and furthermore, it is not acceptable to combine Austria into Germany "1919 - 1945". It don't think that anybody can be taken seriously who tries to prove a point using such purely propagandistic material. Sorry but I'm currently not able to spend much time on Wikipedia. Back soon, I hope. Best, Kosebamse 11:06, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- That's life! (Be glad you have one! ;-))) Thank you. --Ruhrjung 21:49, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Copied from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wik
Begin copied text
I absolutely agree with Eloquence's request. I am sorry to note that Wik's views have indeed remained unchanged ever since he appeared on Wikipedia, despite an enormous amount of discussion about him and with him. Although much could also be said about his habitual rudeness, the crucial point is his inability to discuss with his opponents and most of all his idea that it is his right to unilaterally declare some version of an article "the NPOV version", which he then defnds by reversion wars instead of trying to achieve a version acceptable to everyone. He thus refuses one of our foundational concepts, namely, NPOV. For over half a year now, the Wikipedia community has tried to convince him, with no success whatsoever. I would like to express my regret that such a gifted and devoted user as Wik demonstrates such a lamentable lack of social skills. However, despite all his useful contributions, we should make it absolutely clear to him that continued violation of Wikilove and NPOV is not acceptable. Kosebamse 13:38, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- This is once again so "out there" that I wonder if it's even worthwhile to respond at all. But, for the benefit not of Kosebamse (whose mind is set up) but neutral observers:
- 1) "habitual rudeness" - beg your pardon? I did not call anyone a "pest" as the esteemed developer Ed Poor called me, not to mention the loads of abuse that sysops like Hephaestos or Stan Shebs heaped upon me. But I am rude! (shaking head). I challenge anyone to make a list of rude statements by me, and I will outweigh them by a greater number of rude statements against me.
- 2) Inability to discuss? Another lie. I made my view clear in all disputes. I just don't like to repeat myself, so if people repeat an argument that I've previously replied to, I don't feel obliged to copy-and-paste my previous reply.
- 3) Reversion wars? Do you forget that any reversion war necessarily has two sides doing the exact same number of reverts, plus/minus one? Yet you defend people doing 20 reverts in an hour as long as they're not Wik.
- 4) I violate NPOV? What, by such outrageous claims of mine like that the present name of Gdansk is Gdansk? Or that Jerusalem's status is disputed? Or that Atlantium is not a state? Well, I don't know in what parallel universe you live where the opposite is true, but in my universe certain facts are indeed facts.
- 5) My views have remain unchanged? Yeah, and? So have yours. I guess you're just right and I'm wrong eh? Or what else is so offensive about the fact I'm not bending my views to yours?
- 6) You will not get me to play along with trolls and POV pushers. If you succeed in getting me banned or prohibiting me from reverting which I'd consider equivalent, then I'll simply be off. It's the committee's choice whether it wants serious contributors or people like Jor and Uriber. I'd bide my time until (inevitably) saner governance will be in place. --Wik 14:49, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
I am afraid you are missing my points, so let me clarify. Regarding rudeness, your challenge misses the point, as it is irrelevant who exactly stars being rude; what counts is not to respond aggressively towards an aggressor in order to avoid wars in the first place. - Regarding inability to discuss, you habitually revert instead of discussing differences of opinion (like in the case discussed here), and while you might call this "making your view clear", it's far from being cooperative or NPOV-oriented. - Regarding reversion wars, I don't defend any reversion warrior; quite the contrary, I accuse every reversionist of failing to act cooperatively, and consequently have blocked many reverted pages as an educational measure; and I find it extremely sad that a talented Wikipedian like you wastes his and everyone elses's time with such infantile behavior. - Regarding NPOV, you violate NPOV by insisting that "a NPOV version" of this or that article already exists and deserves reversion instead of discussion, thus making any real improvement impossible. - Regarding your views, I'd like to clarify that I don't care what you think about Gdansk or any other factual matter; I am however worried that you have refused to adopt the Wiki way ever since you appeared here. - Regarding educational measures directed at you, I am quite convinced that the arbitration committee and the vast majority of Wikipedians would be extremely happy if you used your talents to improve articles instead of making so-called "trolls and vandals" happy by fighting them; and if you crave "saner governance", my best advice is to go to Wikinfo where, lacking a NPOV policy, your views might be more welcome, or to make a fork of your own to govern at will. Kosebamse 16:37, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Just what is the "Wiki way" if someone makes a false claim and is completely impervious to arguments? I violate NPOV by insisting that an NPOV version already exists?? So, Kosebamse says if a version exists that says 2+2=4, and someone comes along insisting that 2+2=6, I am not to revert but to talk and finally agree on the compromise 2+2=5! That's what he calls NPOV, apparently. Well in this case I'm gladly a violator. You must really live in a parallel universe, when, of all things, you accuse me of NPOV violations. I don't know anyone who is stricter about NPOV than myself. "Saner governance" obviously means taking the opposite direction as Wikinfo, and adopting a zero-tolerance policy for POV pushers (Jor, Nico, Uriber), self-promoters (Gene Poole, Daniel C. Boyer), and trolls (Lir, Anthony), and, although that would take care of most conflicts, there should additionally be a panel of experts making binding decisions on the remaining cases of disputed content. It is absolutely grotesque how much time is wasted here on "Polish-German" disputes that don't exist at all in the real world; anyone just needs to look on any current English-language map of Poland to see what the name of Gdansk is, for example. But there are dozens of meddlers who instead of doing the first thing to actually look who's right in the substance, have nothing better to do in such cases than to exhort people to "talk", protect pages randomly (and thus often on flatly wrong versions), and complain about reverts, ignoring the fact that there is no way to convince a POV pusher of NPOV - it can not be done. I could fill thousands of talk pages with Uriber without ever coming to an agreement, but what's the point? So, sooner or later those truths will dawn on enough people here, and it is just a matter of time until the saner governance will be adopted. Forking, of course, will only work in case of extreme misrule. Otherwise, even if a fork were established whose policies would be considered superior by a majority of Wikipedians, the switch would not occur for the same reason that most Windows users do not switch to Linux even when realizing it is a better OS per se (a kind of prisoner's dilemma situation, the benefit arises only if most people switch, so it would have to be coordinated which seems impossible with such a large number of individuals involved). --Wik 17:21, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
Alright Wik, all your arguments and evasions have been here before and I see little point in repeating discussions that we have already had for more than half a year. Fact is, the arbitration committee has made a decision about you in order to make you rethink your behavior. You have obviously failed to accept its message, as demonstrated by the call for reversion wars on your user page, and repeatedly violated its letter, leading to 24 hour bans. Eloquence has requested stiffer measures against you, and it is the committee's job to make further decisions. For the record, I would like to note my impression that you have not changed a bit and therefore probably need more convincing arguments to change your ways. I support Eloquence's request. Kosebamse 12:37, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Alright Kosebamse, you just continue lying and not reading what I said. First of all, what have I "evaded"? Apparently until I agree with whatever you say, it's an "evasion". But indeed, we have had enough discussion before, and it was always you who ultimately left, when you were out of arguments, while I answered everything perfectly rationally. But everyone can judge that for themselves. I just repeat: there is no "convincing" here (unless by good arguments, which you haven't provided yet). The committee can permanently ban me or it can't. Measures such as prohibiting all reversions I will consider a permanent ban. It is the committee's choice to trade a prolific contributor for a bunch of POV pushers who would then have free rein. --Wik 16:43, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
End copied text
I'll give you an answer if you apologize for accusing me of lying and defending reversion warriors. Otherwise, consider this conversation ended. Kosebamse 20:11, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Food for thought
As a comment to the quote above, I would like to emphasize that I since the User:Graculus-affaire am increasingly convinced that Wikipedia needs a scheme to slow down editing and request some kind of community approval (or rather: absence of numerous disapproval) written into the program code of wikipedia, if this kind of problem (Wik is not at all the only problem child here around) is to be moderated. Eloquence's quickpoll scheeme has been rather successful to decrese the intensity of revert-wars. And that's good. But, imho, that's also more or less all. POV-pushers now push their points a few times a day instead. That's good, but it doesn't solve the real problem.
So, why do I write this to you?
It's only food for thoughts. I hope that some day the critical mass of people will become sufficient to commence a real discussion.
--Ruhrjung 23:20, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that it would be a good idea to have some edit-slowing mechanism in the software, but am not so sure about approval mechanisms - I believe that nothing is better than qualified judgement based on common sense and good will. Which latter quality is lamentably lacking in some of our most productive fellow Wikipedians, alas. And we might need to stop feeling so passionately about Wikipedia. Wik is a most unfortunate case of devotion to what he perceives as the only possible truth (and indeed he most often is right in factual questions), but hopelessly stuck in his confrontational thinking, a rather medieval character in some respects. Good to know that Jimbo has intervened, but I am afraid Wik is a hopeless case. I can't really figure what we might learn from this; perhaps I could learn more about myself than anything else, as Wik is indeed the first and only one who almost made me lose my contenance. But I digress. Anyway, Frohe Ostern! Kosebamse 06:00, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
As you may already be aware, the arbitration committee has agreed to review your complaints against Wik. Please add any further statements you may wish to make to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2, and add evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2/Evidence.
Be aware that we will also investigate any counter-claims made by Wik against you. Any questions, just ask. Martin 17:58, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Just wondered in reply to my contributions, you mentioned that advertising links are not allowed. How did the link to my site that is a directory for baseball card collectors/ card shop compare to others that have listed their sites under external links. Please do not take this as hostile, I am just trying to figure out the guidelines before I continue to contribute information about baseball cards. Thanks. user:ballcardshop
- Thanks for asking. I have removed your contributions to four articles because the links you added point to a site that looks primarily commercial. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not clearly states that Wikipedia is not a medium for advertising. That page also says that exceptions are possible for links to certain commercial websites. I don't think your site fits the description (and by the way, I don't necessarily agree with that exception). Others' opinions may differ, but in general you will best avoid adding links that look suspicious of advertising. You are of course more than welcome to contribute any knowledge you would like to share in the spirit of NPOV. Best, Kosebamse 16:42, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I appreciate the information. You are correct that my site does have commercial value, "how I aford to run the site". I am not sure about that exception either. In my opinion all or none. Most of the sites listed have comercial value in one way or another. It would be one thing if the people posting the links did not contribute, but those that do or are willing to contribute should have some leaway.
Hi Kosebamse, pleased to find you've joined the WikiDoc effort. I've seen your numerous good edits on medical issues, and I was starting to wonder what field you were working in. I've been out of the running for a few days, but I'm going to start with "blue boxes" for Haematology. JFW | T@lk 08:47, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Hi JfdW, thanks for starting work on the WikiDoc project - long overdue and a worthy cause. I will be away for a few days but you'll hear from me again. Best, Kosebamse 10:33, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
A message over the WikiDoc network—
User:Ksheka is trying to move [[Heart attack]] to Myocardial infarction. This involves having the Redirect deleted at Myocardial infarction. Please vote for delete at: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#April_18.
JFW | T@lk 10:56, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- This seems to raise a policy question: should imprecise colloquialisms really be first-line article titles? I think they should not. Kosebamse 10:27, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Please excuse my ignorance, but what is the source of this policy? Being unfamiliar with this policy I have previously argued on several articles that their names are colloquialisms. I think that when it comes to scientific articles, the following two theorems hold:
- Being redirected can be educational; and
- Sometimes a good "small" article can bridge the gap between colloquialism and scientific title. Perhaps, as User:Kd4ttc pointed out, a short "heart attack" article might help.
- Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), as far as I understand it, tells us to use the most commonly used term as article title, and this policy is always cited as an argument in deletion and redirect debates. As I said, I don't agree with that policy. I would rather have us use the opportunity to educate readers to using correct terminology, and the proper way to do that is making the scientifically correct term the main article title and have everything else redirect there. Thus, [[heart attack]] should redirect to myocardial infarction. It may not always be easy, but terminology is so extremely important in our field (or, as my pathology prof put it, "learning medicine is 50% about learning terminology, or should I say 100%) that I really don't like the idea of promoting the use of colloquialisms where a precise terminology exists. Kosebamse 12:17, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Pat Metheny Group
Thank you for your very kind and encouraging words. I have in fact been disturbed though I theoretically subscribe to the very idea of wikipedia, about which I wrote in my weblog Giosetti Writes in an entry of 09 Apr 2004|11:38pm. I have poked around in your talk sites and understand your comment on my talk page now. I admire you for dealing with the usual "net trolls" - I would certainly have neither the patience nor the time to do so. Jost ammon 11:16, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)