User talk:Clean Copy/Archive5

Thanks, I think, for this edit. I had considered Indus Valley Civilization, but I didn't see any support for that in the sources or elsewhere. After you changed it, it seems to have gotten someone's attention, since they apparently "know" that there's no support for it in IVC and they've now edited things so there is no longer any hint that the concept originated earlier than the Vedic culture, which I thought was a key point. Since I'm no expert, I'm satisfied to leave it as it now is.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you, for uploading this file.

However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm some details,

If it's your own work, please include {{own}}, amend the {{information}} added by a third party, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add |claimed=yes to the {{media by uploader}} tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{information}} where appropriate).

If it's not your own work please provide as much sourcing/authorship information as you are able to.

This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transfered to Commons.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Ethnic slurs. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Clean Copy: pedophilia is not a law it is a medical diagnosis and means to be sexual attracted to prepubescent children, cops or any other law enforcement agency that uses it as a term for someone who breaks a sexual based crime that relates to just being underage are using it indiscriminately and are incorrect,^[1][2][3] some people use the word for anyone who dates younger than them even if both parties are of legal age just because they say that dose not mean it is true or is a applicable definition. there is also a commonly accepted definition of the word and that is the one provided by the dsm and or icd there are no other definitions other some people using it indiscriminately for any one that commits a sexual based crime against a minor or is sexual attracted to one but they are not pedophiles unless they are attracted to prepubescent children, on the wiki page about child sexual abuse they actually get this right by saying in the beginning(The word pedophile is commonly applied indiscriminately to anyone who sexually abuses a child, but child sexual offenders are not pedophiles unless they have a strong sexual interest in prepubescent children.) people who use pedophile to refer to being attracted to anyone under age is using it incorrect, it is a medical disorder that refers to being attracted to young children the wiki article on pedophile already indicated this too the word incorrectly should be applied to Law and forensic psychology definitions

There is the word's medical definition and there is its common usage. These can co-exist side-by-side. In a non-medical context, such as this encyclopedia, all contexts and usages should be recognized. Clean Copy^talk 19:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Clean Copy: I know it is talking about common usage i just want to make it more clear by changing In law enforcement circles, the term pedophile is sometimes used in a broad manner to encompass a person who commits one or more sexually-based crimes that relate to legally underage victims to In law enforcement circles, the term pedophile is sometimes used informally in a broad manner to encompass a person who commits one or more sexually-based crimes that relate to legally underage victims the common usage is not what pedophilia means it is a medical diagnosis that is diagnosed and refers to the sexual attraction to prepubescent children the individual must be at least 16 and 5 years older the common usage is not the correct meaning and is incorrect no physiatrist would ever consider or diagnose somebody for pedophile for only being attracted to a 15 yr old regardless of what the mass media thinks that individual is not is irrelevant the common usage is used indiscriminately and incorrect but regardless that is not the point i know some people use it in other usages in the sub sec Misuse of medical terminology it mention that The words pedophile and pedophilia are commonly used informally to describe an adult's sexual interest in pubescent or post-pubescent teenagers and i think that the sentence in the Law and forensic psychology should be changed to refect that it is informal by saying n law enforcement circles, the term pedophile is sometimes used informally in a broad manner to encompass a person who commits one or more sexually-based crimes that relate to legally underage victims. medical usage and common usage should not co-exist side by side it is a medical diseases there is one definition and that is the ones by dsm and icd

"Informally" is fine. (You originally put "incorrectly".) Clean Copy^talk 21:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Clean Copy: ok thank you sir

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, Hgilbert! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and  Tentinator  07:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the editing of my entries, it that it not sufficiently clear to the viewer/reader that Steiner developed quite a specific, comprehensive training of the actor. By concluding the entry with the reference to Michael Chekhov, the impression is left that we must turn to Chekhov for the actor training, but this is a offshoot and not the complete picture. A better example of a anthroposophically trained performer would be Mechthild Harkness. Significant other actors in The English speaking world who have striven to work out of Steiner's speech and drama impulse include Peter & Barbara Bridgmont.(Hardy456 (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

We need to find WP:Reliable sources to establish this. These are few and far between on this subject. HGilbert (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One would imagine primary sources for Steiner would be texts produced by him. If you take the time to read the "Speech & Drama lectures" ISNB 0880101421, it is quite clear his and Marie Steiner's approach. For secondary literature, there is Hans Pusch "A New Kind of Actor" ISBN 09229979729, then a very interesting article "Experiences in the Realm of Dramatic Art" by Gottfried Haas-Berkow in A Man Before Others ISBN 18855840073. Then more recently the Anderson article already cited on the page.

For another perspective on Chekhov & Steiner you could look at Gilmer, Jane Margaret. "Michael Chekhov's Imagination of the Creative Word and the question of its integration into his future theatre." Theatre, Dance and Performance Training 4.2 (2013): 204-218. (Hardy456 (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardy456 (talk • contribs)

Hi there-- I saw that you reverted some content that User:58.179.199.115 made to the article Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. However, after you did so, the same user re-added the information. It was then reverted again by User:DoctorKubla. The content was then added yet again by a different user, User:116.240.147.221. The exact same content was added by both users. If it is the same person(s) who added the content, then they broke the three revert rule.

Thanks, Newyorkadam (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

Both IP addresses are on the same network in Australia, but I don't know that we can prove anything... HGilbert (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Resposito. You recently undid one of the changes I made to the Arete article. The article stated that Arete's sister was Harmonia, while her sister is actually Homonoia, who is and entirely different goddess. Harmonia is the daughter Ares and Aphrodite, while Homonoia is the daughter of Soter and Praxidike. Both Harmonia and Homonoia are goddesses of concord and their names are spelled similar, yet they are different. I can see why you would think I was mistaken, and I appreciate you taking the time to let me know you undid my edit! Thanks. Respositob (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I realized that this was a legitimate edit and reverted my own changes. Sorry for the confusion, and keep up the good work. HGilbert (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive833#Large amount of properly sourced content is being continually deleted from Providence Religious Movement Article. ... Since you previously responded in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 147#Use of unverified or planted references in article about Jung Myung Seok, I thought your consideration of the case would be of value. Sam Sailor ^Sing 11:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Why do you change my Editing? I think it is Vandalism if you change proper editing or Information in Wikipedia.
-> Kindergarten is a deutsch (german) Word and may not be used in english. It is like I put the iranian Word
"Mahde Kudak" (Kidsgarden) in to english and say: children go to Mahde Kudak.
-> Kidsgarden is an american Word and is proper for that Place and usage in english Language.
Please don't change my editing unless you are really shure that the Information is wrong. Farsidan 28/03/2014

I can understand why you might think this, but the word Kindergarten is a loan word in English. English does this a lot; see List of English words of Persian origin. HGilbert (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hgilbert hi

Further to our editing interaction at Eurythmy I just wanted to check you agreed that it was not good asserting that euryhtmy movements "have been proven to be helpful for many children's ailments"[1] sourced to a book chapter written by anthroposophists, in a book on "Integrative oncology" co-edited by Andrew Weil. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of Andrew Weil before, but looked into the Integrative Oncology book further on your recommendation above...it is published by Oxford University Press. Wikipedia:RS#Scholarship states clearly that such presses are sufficient to establish reliability. What is the problem? HGilbert (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clean Copy, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the connection being made in the article[2] between Steiner and Husserl somewhat questionable, but have now via an American newsletter[3] come upon the verse "Why does the soul of Man..." from the German that Steiner had inscribed in a copy of Knowledge of the Higher Worlds, 1918. (You may know of this.) It may not be citable in that article or others but it makes sense to me. The comment touches on the practical difficulties of putting Steiner's thoughts into his own German language (cp. using words from Zimmermann and Dilthey), before even beginning to translate Steiner into English or other languages, and trying to effect conceptual equivalence verbally (cp. Latin versions of Biblical Greek or credal statements). How right he was to propose putting "Spiritual Activity" in the title for English language readers, instead of "Freedom". The newsletter may not be citable in that article or others but it makes sense to me. Couldn't find Hicks's article though. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: if in modern usage "visual arts" extends to portrait and other photography, does it include such artful fabrications as the Cottingley Fairies which Conan Doyle promoted in good faith?[4] Thus the flexibility of words and phrases has a malleability which could be regarded as a branch of a plastic art. Perhaps in a way that's one of the things Steiner was getting at, and which the House of the Word, and the statue, were for: to show that the beings that approach must judge themselves in matters of truthfulness, whether in philosophy (Husserl's or any other), aesthetics, physics and chemistry, astronomy, or otherwise.[5] Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings falsify reality, too, as does literature; thus Plato's critique of all art.HGilbert (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

εικών as in Iconoclasm. Could remind one of "Man as a Picture of the Living Spirit" (London, 2nd September, 1923), Trans.George Adams[6] Ich bin nur Bild davon.<-->I am but a picture of it (also included in "Verses and Meditations", published with Adams's introduction and notes, London, 1961). For "bild" one could compare such as [7] "Für das Verständnis anthroposophischer Meditation ist die Gliederung des gewöhnlichen Erkennens in vier Stufen wesentlich. Rudolf Steiner unterschied 1. den Gegenstand, der sinnlich wahrgenommen wird; 2. das Bild, das man sich vom Gegenstand während das Wahrnehmens macht und das man danach erinnern kann; 3. den Begriff, der die Gesetzmäßigkeit des Gegenstandes verständlich macht; und 4. das Ich, ohne dessen wahrnehmende, bildschaffende, erinnernde und beurteilende Tätigkeit kein Erkennen zustande käme [1 = Rudolf Steiner: Die Stufen der höheren Erkenntnis. GA 12, Dornach 1979.] . Im gewöhnlichen Bewusstsein wird nur der sinnlich wahrgenommene Gegenstand vollwach erlebt." Not quite what Husserl and others had in mind but nearer to Goethe, perhaps. Qexigator (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place on the title of this article at Talk:Melancholia#Requested_move. All input welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, revision 15:10, 26 June[8] succinctly makes this important point (-heit / -dom), an instance of the linguistic-cultural diversities which can enrich or Babel-lke confound understanding among nations and peoples. Also, an alert reader will notice the date of 1916, and the armed conflict at the time between certain states under German-speaking governments and others under English-speaking, as well as the neutrals such as Switzerland. Qexigator (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise: How does one use that "message" device? Qexigator (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May need a further fix[9], now seeing stray " ] " and need to get to ref in Lantern for a, to cap. 2 The Story of My Life for b, and to cap. 14 for c - and note ref. for Schroer. Qexigator (talk) 06:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted a direct reference to a famous 18th-century etiquette guide as an unreliable source? [10] Wnt (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. It is surely a reliable source on 18th-century etiquette but the theory of temperaments is pretty far from its area of expertise. HGilbert (talk) 10:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of today's (August 10 2014)? I have gone for streamlining, trimming, and trying to bring out the forward movement of the argument. But I have only worked on Part I.Thewikibeagles (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)2601:6:6380:756:6233:4BFF:FE19:6E7 (talk) 09:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. HGilbert (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have named you as a user affected by this Amendment request. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hgilbert, this is a courtesy notice to inform you that the motion proposed regarding Pete K has been passed by the Arbitration Committee and the amendment request has been closed and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved whatever it is you were trying to do to a subpage in your user space linked above. If you want to merge content from that page into Theosophical Society then do it from your user space. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recently you changed an edit that I made on the Orphan Black page where I changed the term "forced" to "influenced" in regards to a scene involving the character of Paul. At this year's comic con the panel indicated that they did not think that it was forced rather a figment of his plot circumstances. If you do have a cited source where they have otherwise indicated that it was forced or against his will, please cite. Otherwise influenced is a more correct term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huskball (talk • contribs) 03:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Huskball: Sorry; I reverted because the grammar of your edit was incorrect English: "influencing him into a". But I can fix the grammar and leave the shift in meaning. HGilbert (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wanted to let you know that I don't care what yankee, citizen of the biggest destroyer in world history thinks what it constructive, because it would be one giant hypocrisy no greetings at all, anonymous ip — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.9.172.251 (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case it is of interest, I have noticed a curious transposing misprint in Kalitsky's work,[11] at the end of section 3.7.2: "The desertion from theosophical ranks (at least in part) because of the perceived shift to a more Eastern flavoured form of doctrine also included... Rudolph Steiner (1816-1925)... amongst other previous members or sympathisers." [12] Qexigator (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you made a mistake in undoing my edits on the Earth mass article. The bits I removed make no scientific sense. They violate pretty basic thermodynamics principles, claiming that heat influx and outflows to the Earth change its mass. Conservation of mass is pretty basic. Source: I have a PhD in Engineering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.239.108 (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine you must have studied mass-energy equivalence along the way; if not, then this is the missing part of the picture. HGilbert (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I added his gaming career was the fact that he was really good at what he did. Lots of us in the gaming "realm", if you will, look up to him. He is more well known as a professional gamer than a movie star! I would appreciate if you put my newfound information back on the page so Wikipedia can still be a reliable source of information. I know you're trying to do your job and all, but please consider putting that information back on the page. Thanks, and have a good one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathusala (talk • contribs) 00:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a WP:Reliable source for this, it can be added to the article. HGilbert (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why you had erased the Google book link?[13] Bladesmulti (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it was a messy link, but I have placed a trimmed one back in. HGilbert (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anthroposophy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wala. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's preposterous. Doesn't mean Steiner didn't believe it. I provided 4+ articles that cite the rooting of "looping" in reincarnation and reincarnation as the basis for many decisions in Waldorf education. I have no intention to remove these edits, and I'm stricken by the fact that you want to censor well sourced fact because it doesn't comply with your view of the discipline. Waldorf educaiton exists outside of your conception of reality, apparently.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It means that you have to supply better sources than a single newspaper article on an unrelated topic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. @Shibbolethink: HGilbert (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, @Hgilbert:, would you like to take this reincarnation issue up with the mediation committee? I advise you to check out the WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, and read this in particular:

"Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. It may help to remember that there is no deadline and that editors can add appropriate cleanup tags to problematic sections under current discussion. When discussion does not produce a conclusion, bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Consider getting a third opinion or starting a request for comments. Neutral editors aware of the dispute will help curb egregious edits while also building consensus about the dispute. If these methods fail, seek informal and formal dispute resolution.

Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute, they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse, i.e., they revert only when necessary. This policy may be particularly appropriate for controversial topics where views are polarized and emotions run high, resulting in more frequent edit warring.

The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting"--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; I have provided clear evidence on the talk page, and I look forward to your response to this evidence. Citing sources that do not actually support your position is not very effective, however. HGilbert (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you provide evidence that the 7 year claim is false, then we can clarify the 7 year claim by saying X and X and X have said this. But it should not be removed, as it clearly exists as a theory, whether minority or majority is yet to be determined.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, re: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." that's a great quote. One of my all time favorites. Important to note, in this usage, is that I'm not trying to prove that this 7 year cycle of reincarnation actually exists. I believe pretty much the opposite, personally. I'm just attempting to prove 1. That Steiner believed it. 2. It underlies much of the Waldorf schools' founding ideas. Clearly several disparate secondary source news agencies have published this as fact. They have fact-finding imperatives, large readership, and a pseudo-objective viewpoint, which is why they are WP:RS. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hgilbert. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shibbolethink:, have you ever heard of forum shopping? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hgilbert. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Shibbolethink. Your recent edit to the page Waldorf education appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably a message from ShibbolethinkHGilbert (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was, but you could have used sinebot--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SineBot doesn't catch everything. But there's the {{unsigned}} template that people usually use. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh THAT'S how that works. Thanks--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Waldorf education, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

The recent dispute came to my attention due to a 3RR complaint. You must know about the Arbcom because you are a long-time editor on this topic. But since the discretionary sanctions are new since 2013 I wasn't sure if you were aware. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You reverted my three edits to the University of Dundee page on the grounds you felt the article was better before.

The second two were actually corrections. Belmont Flats opened at exactly the same time as Heathfield and Seabraes as it was one big project. I also removed a line that suggested Tay Mills was a still owned by the University when it is not.

The other changes, which involved moving two centres and trimming back the content was made for the following reason and was discussed in detail with another editor on the talk page. Both edits about centres were made from UoD IP addresses, likely by members of staff from the centres themselves. By looking at the University pages it is clear that these centres are not as large nor important as their paragraphs would make out. The strucutre of the page as reverted to suggests that the centre for gene research is as important as the entire art school when in reality it is an internal structure. The same for the European Security centre.

I'm all for having plenty information however the information as shown gives an inaccurate picture of the University.

The University structure is listed here for reference. http://www.dundee.ac.uk/main/colleges-schools/

Hope this helps explain why I made my edits and hopefully we can put them back as I think they were valid. :-)

Thanks 77.99.109.71 (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; my mistake. It looked like the article was getting scrambled. I have brought your edits back in. HGilbert (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think the two changes I made were not constructive. The first was just to fix a table cell that missing its border. The second was fixing a broken link. The link went to page that been deleted. While Elissa Wall's biographical page no longer exist, a entry on her autobiography does. So, I forwarded the link to that page. The other option would be to remove the link altogether. I was just trying to be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.86.193.17 (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have apologized and explained the source of the mistake on your talk page. HGilbert (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The name is being removed for a good reason. It is also an unnecessary part of the article. I have removed it a fw times now, and need it to stay that way. His name does have limited usage since the incident. Please do not re-edit. Qwerty1234fghj (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerty1234fghj:You should explain your reasoning on the talk page of the article. Otherwise it seems an arbitrary gesture. HGilbert (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(comment moved to article talk page)

The Barnstar of Diplomacy

Hello Hgilbert, I beg to differ about unconstructiveness. My chronology is a faithful and reasonable account of this Kafkaesque affair. I know it's definitely hard to get into it but one just cannot oversimplify what is overcomplicated. If you will read the given details as well as the accompanying links to evidence you will understand this shameful sordid story hidden by lousy politicians to their respective people, both Italian and Indian. Supermario1949 (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot replace a carefully researched presentation with your own idea of what has happened. See WP:Truth for an explanation of our dependence upon existing sources. HGilbert (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	hi Steaveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the reversion that you made to my correction, I believe that it was undue. My correction was not irrelevant, i was simply correcting a spelling error. Although it may have been only a small difference, spelling errors detract from the professionalism of the page. I have since fixed the error and I hope that it will stay that way. 174.45.38.163 (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your vandalism has since been reverted by another editor.HGilbert (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just FYI, the change was supported by the citations that were already there. I simply reworded the sentence, and there was neither any new text added or any text removed. Epic Genius (talk) ± 15:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Where do these contrast residents outside the city with those inside? HGilbert (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence before the one that I changed reads: Polls have shown that most Americans, including most residents of New York State and New York City (though not most residents of Manhattan), oppose it. Before my revision, this next sentence was: Most Americans and residents of New York State do, however, believe the Park51 developers have a legal right to proceed with the project. Now, the text reads, However, many Americans outside of New York City believe that the Park51 developers have a legal right to proceed with the project. The original revision is basically saying the most American residents, state residents, and city residents, but not most borough residents, oppose the idea, but implied that most American and state residents, but not most city and borough residents, think that the developers legally have the right to proceed. It was confusing to read, so I reworded the sentence to make it easier, at least from what I understood from what the sentence said. Epic Genius (talk) ± 16:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! As noted in the edit comments as well as article Talk Page, the material that was deleted is not mentioned in the cited sources, and none of the cited sources for deleted material mention Evan Tann. I spent much time checking the sources and searching for any other reliable sources, but none exist other than the 7 that remained after my edits. This article was written like a resume, and cites sources that do not support the contents. That violates WP:BLP guidelines which clearly state unsourced, falsely sourced and unreliable material must be immediately deleted from a BLP. The contents also do not meet WP:N guidelines. Please kindly undo your revert of my proper edits. Thank you! Zimdolf (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @HGilbert. I agree with @Zimdolf. Please explain your reversion to the earlier, inaccurate version. Basicallyyes (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I edited the Tann article last month, I tried to find reliable sources, but as others said there are very few reliable sources that mention Tann. I located a few articles about the company he works for, but those were mostly about the company presenting at tech events, such as TechCrunch and TED. Tann was a representative of the company at those events, not there on his own merit. I put those references in the private life section but in retrospect it isn't private life but work. I support the deletions made by Zimdolf. If the appropriate deletions are made, then the article doesn't amount to more than a few verifiable sentences (eg. that Tann went to USC and started a small startup, which isn't notable) so I would suggest the article be nominated for deletion.Anethars (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps we should stick to what is notable. I have restored the earlier version. @Anethars: if there are no sources for this, perhaps you need to wait until the person in question is more notable. HGilbert (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hgilbert, yes, I understand and agree. Thank you. Anethars (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, yeah I really think I prefer my version, most other Wikipedia Roman pages also call it that(Julius Caesar and Claudius) and it's what their religion was called, we don't call Judaism "ancient middle east religion"-Joy(it's my name, I'm using this for you know who I am, no I don't have a Wikipedia page but I plane on getting one, plus my anxiety causes me to worry about upsetting others with my edits so I prefer to go unnoticed hunch not having a Wikipedia account, but still planning on getting one for my "smaller" edits like grammar check I guess. ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:375A:A750:2DA5:EA0A:7D35:3260 (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Joy. Sorry about the revert.

Julius Caesar refers us to "Roman polytheism". I have changed Cato the Elder to this, as perhaps most accurate. Both Roman polytheism and Roman paganism simply redirect to the Religion in Ancient Rome article. I'm open to discussing this further, though!

Also -- if you ever need any help, please ask. By the way: It is reassuring to people on WP to see a registered user make edits; this allows continuity and conversation and implies there is some commitment. So I would recommend taking this step, though probably an anonymous user name is better. HGilbert (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be sorry, it was your opinion and you where really nice about it, personally I still prefer calling the religion "Roman Paganism" but "Roman Polytheism" is also what it's called, besides I don't own the world, if everyone prefers it to be called that then fine-Joy.(Also yes going to make a Wikipedia account.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:375A:A750:2DA5:EA0A:7D35:3260 (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's me, Joy, okay time to get real:I have an IQ of 78 I'm not smart when it comes to complex stuff like Wikipedia editing, but I tried to say not "bite off more then I can chew" but I made my Wikipedia page and while editing it I posted

like

this

but it ended up being

like this

I don't know how to make it not do that, can you please tell me how to do it?Historypersonalized (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hgilbert, are you ok? You have not edited since three days ago, how are you? 89.241.171.15 (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am well. I frequently go a few days without editing; thanks for asking. HGilbert (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit on List of years in film? I admit I've been editing that page a lot, but that was because someone was persistently adding insignificant films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.221.194.128 (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was flagged by WP:STIKI and I thought it was Thanksgiving vandalism. HGilbert (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. -User:73.221.194.128 —Preceding undated comment added 22:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Biodynamic agriculture. Thank you. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Links to particular BD farms are not appropriate in a general article about BD farming. (I apologize for calling the edit SPAM, however, which is usually reserved for external links.)

In any case, another editor reverted all of your edits. HGilbert (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is no merging, this is deleting information. You should be ashamed. Wait, actually, you should be blocked. I hope other contributors will be able to take care of the POV-pushing you have nicely done on this article. I am not expecting any answer. Totodu74 (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Totudo74: I apologize; I merged the first three paragraphs you added, which reflected information already present in an earlier section, into the existing sections, but honestly didn't see that the last of the four paragraphs you added was on another theme. It is my mistake, and thank you for adding this back.

Incidentally, you might review WP:AGF. HGilbert (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello H. Gilbert, A while ago I inserted an passage into The Philosophy of Freedom that you deleted and put somewhere else. I am glad you did, but I can't now find what I wrote. It had to do with actions being free when they are performed out of a free thought, and the difficulty with the follow-up question what we are to say about the question whether the action of choosing a thought as the basis of an action is itself free. There are difficulties with either answer. Do you remember the passage? Has it been completely deleted, or is it somewhere on the wikipedia PoF page, but I am too dense to see it? Thanks for your help, The wikibeagles

@‎Thewikibeagles Look at the edit history and see if you can find the old version that had this. Or

Use this tool to find the change when the passage was added or deleted. (Put in a few words from the passage and it will locate when the change was made.) HGilbert (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know Vonnegut's intentions when he included the prayer in Slaughterhouse-Five? Vonnegut did not provide any explanation for including the prayer in the novel. Literary analysis is always an opinion unless it is done by the author himself. That is why literary critics often disagree with each other. Please explain either here or on the article talk page, or revert the edit. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundayclose: Vonnegut's intentions are unknown, I agree, and also irrelevant here. I have removed the claim about these, leaving the simple statement of the prayer's occurrence in the book. Is this satisfactory?

As I have said, I am not sure that it is worth mentioning this at all in the article; if so, minimally. HGilbert (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steelbeard wanted a source verifying the literary significance. As you have changed it, the source simply verifies that the prayer is in the novel. We already know the prayer is in the novel. The source verifies literary significance, so it needs to be clarified that it is a literary interpretation, not a "fact", and not a simple verification that the prayer is in the novel. If you think it's "not worth mentioning", please raise that issue separately for discussion on the talk page, but if the information stays in the article it needs to be clear that it has literary significance (hence, the source), and it needs to be presented as a literary interpretation rather than a "fact". Sundayclose (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are creating a situation of conflicting edits. Please wait until I finish. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Leprof 7272 I noticed an orphaned citation and repaired it. I didn't realize that you had created this problem or that you planned to eventually fix it. HGilbert (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Indeed, this was my first time making an edit, and the thought of leaving a reference completely went over the top of my head. That's not good science! I'll remember to do so in the future. Now, regarding the article in which I made an edit, Wein's displacement law, I believe I had made an edit to the formula for Planck's radiation law :${\displaystyle u_{\lambda }(\lambda ,T)={2hc^{2} \over \lambda ^{5}}{1 \over e^{hc/\lambda kT}-1}.}$ . I am currently studying this subject in school, and in our textbook, "Fundamentals of Physics" 10th Ed., the formula for Planck's radiation law is written as :${\displaystyle u_{\lambda }(\lambda ,T)={2\pi hc^{2} \over \lambda ^{5}}{1 \over e^{hc/\lambda kT}-1}.}$ ^[4] so the only difference between the two is the π in the numerator. It does nothing to change the derivation of Wien's law, as it pops out and is eliminated during differentiation when solving for λT.

CorralF (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Corral: I think there is some confusion here... are you sure that this is the formula for ${\displaystyle u_{\lambda }(\lambda ,T)}$ and not some other value? Is it per unit angle, as the article specifies?

		The Bronze STiki Barnstar of Merit
		Congratulations, Hgilbert! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 5,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Omni Flames let's talk about it 01:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Stuart Mill. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hgilbert: just saw your decision re:: John Stuart Mill's influence on Paul Dirac, and i am assuming it's because farmelo is being used as the only source? i also assume that any additional support in the form of interpretations--i.e., reviews or citations-- of farmelo's work would be inadmissible?

how strong of a reference are you looking for?

i'm not saying that your decision is wrong, but that you have significantly elevated the requirements for "influence" inclusion for extremely popular philosophers like mill. if not farmelo, who is really qualified to study the life of Dirac? i am not trying to be argumentative, as i can understand from your point of view how including a physicist as an influence on a philosopher's page can (in some people's view, unfairly) cast a shadow on the remaining influences. i am just trying to see if current literature will satisfy you, but i suspect it won't (and that's why it took you a while to make a ruling, which is OK by me).

interesting conundrum, imo. ;) 174.3.155.181 (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You would need an independent reliable source that makes a strong claim to substantiate Mill as a significant influence. HGilbert (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hgilbert: that's fine, but i have to ask why is farmelo insufficient for that cause? lack of expertise, or something else? i thought i'd cited a passage directly from his book? any critique of the supplied evidence and its flaws would be appreciated. thank you 174.3.155.181 (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farmelo gives as factual that Dirac was bored with Mill and turned away from philosophy. This does not remotely support the claim of an influence; rather the contrary. Farmelo then speculates further, but speculation is not evidence.

I will not continue this discussion until reliable evidence is supplied. HGilbert (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so as i was asking: is anything from Farmelo's book inadmissible? for example, farmelo states:

They [Einstein and Dirac] agreed that science was fundamentally about explaining more and more phenomena in terms of fewer and fewer theories, a view they had read in Mill’s A System of Logic.” (Farmelo, 2009, p. 137)

are you going to classify this as speculation as well? would i have to prove that einstein and dirac both read Mill's System of Logic, and came to this conclusion? 174.3.155.181 (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

here's another source:

From Broad, Dirac also learned about the notino of the constancy of the velocity of light and the concept of curved space, facts which again turned his thinking into completely new directions. In addition he tried to understand the philosophical point of view. Thus, he even borrowed a copy of John Stuart Mill's A System of Logic from the library and read it through. At that time he thought that philosophy would perhaps contribute to the progress of science, but later on decided that it 'will never lead to important discoveries. It is just a way of thinking about discoveries which have already been made' (Dirac, Conversations, p.21). In this context Dirac discovered that he was 'not interested just in logical developments, or in seeing what the possibilities are when one follows from a different set of axioms' (Dirac, 1977, p. 112). His interest was in the real physical world, an interest which was buttressed by the engineering training he had received in Bristol. [Mehta https://books.google.ca/books?id=c9ZmLmVFSYQC&pg=PA20

don't you think this source, which is different from Farmelo, is enough to justify insertion? Surely having some clarity or improved sense of academic direction after reading some literature is an influence? Dirac himself, in the above passage, clearly discovered he wanted more than just logic-- he wanted physics too.174.3.155.181 (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. That they had read this view in Mill does not mean that Mill influenced them in coming to this view. As it was and is a widespread view in science, they could (and probably did) also have encountered the same view from other scientists independently. Farmelo does not claim that it is Mill who was the decisive influence; he avoids this for a very good reason -- that there is no evidence to support this supposition.
2. That, as your second source claims, Dirac concluded from reading Mill that "philosophy...will never lead to important discoveries" is evidence for Mill not being a strong influence. It undermines your case, not supports it. HGilbert (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is justifiable to conclude that Dirac had (1) read Mill, where he (2) encountered his ideas about the efficiency of theories. It is not justifiable to conclude that this was a significant influence on Dirac's thought. HGilbert (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so this means anything from Farmelo isn't sufficient to substantiate influence, because you're of the belief it's Farmelo's speculation? i just want to be clear here because Farmelo himself said the intimidating technical nature of Dirac's work makes it difficult to write a good autobiography. it seems that if i cannot use his work as a source for "influenced" on mill's page, then nothing else out there will be sufficient. i'm a bit surprised you find this book insufficient, or chalk up any attributions to Mill's influence on Dirac as "general".

i would like to think Farmelo wrote this book with the intention of impartially describing who influenced Dirac.

don't know why the arts kids are up in arms about a physicist being influenced by a philosopher, aside from the fact that physics is somewhat (probably barely) more useful than philosophy. i haven't read Farmelo's book entirely, but i am sure if i did i would probably walk away with a stronger opinion because there are many pages not available on preview that apparently discuss Mill.

just curious... have you read the book? is this why you're of the opinion that Farmelo's claim of Mill influencing Dirac is speculation? 174.3.155.181 (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi,

i'm sorry i didn't ever get an answer during our entire correspondence regarding the validity of using Farmelo as a source. could i please get some follow up on that specific point? i asked many times and you did not really answer (from what i saw). i apologise if i missed it. i am being respectful and courteous throughout the exchange, so please do not be offended. specifically, i suggested that your arguments had an overarching theme of discarding the importance of Mill's influence on Dirac because of your belief that Farmelo is speculating. i then asked you what would constitute as a sufficient source, given the scarcity of good biographies on the man, and my belief that Farmelo was trying to deliver an impartial assessment.

such an assessment lead to his (presumably impartial) conclusion that Dirac had been influenced by Mill. may i ask why Farmelo as a source is insufficient, given the scarcity of both quality and quantity of sources for Dirac's life?

thank you again and i'm sorry for "dragging this on" (in your view) 174.3.155.181 (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not sufficient. Please do not respond here, as I am not interested in further discussion. HGilbert (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

tyvm for your quick response. i am satisfied with your answer and i understand your point of view. we will see in the future which view is correct ^_^ thank you for spending some time shootin' the ol' philosophical s**t! 174.3.155.181 (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]