text: User:Melgaali

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Melgaali


text:
User talk:Melgaali

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

title: User talk:Melgaali


text:
User talk:TaranRampersad

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Nice quote!
Nice quote in that AP article: 'Wikis' Offer Knowledge - Sharing Online.

Thanks, BCorr | Брайен 18:52, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sando Hill
Glad you started the page - there is nothing as inspiring as a blank page to get started (a broken link just doesn't do it for me). You picked a topic very close to my heart - as a 4th generation San Fernandian (now stuck in the wilds of middle America). Guettarda 20:04, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pictures of the Hill would be nice. On the way up the Hill, after you pass the guard booth, the road turns sharply to the right with a cliff-fcae on your left. In 1991 that cliff was almost bare, just a few scattered young stunted trees. Now the whole area is densely vegetated - I'm really impressed with that spot, especially since, unlike many of the other areas, the recovery was entirely natural. A shot from the top would also give a good sense of the town of Sando Guettarda

Otaheite
It appears that you were wrong about the name "Otaheite". Yes, it is a name of an island, but Tahiti is a modern name of the same island. The archipelago it is located in is called Society Islands. (You could have found out by looking at the Wikipedia articles, or at outside sources like MSN Encarta.) -- Mike Rosoft 20:48, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) -- Taran 21:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) -- And I say... (1) that's pretty rude, and (2) Otaheite is a cultural and historical reference that deserves at least a redirect. I dropped a note on your page. Now we can do this the hard way or the easy way. The easy way would be at least a redirect - but I offer that a native of Tahiti who is concerned about their history may wish to write something about Otaheite.

I'd also advise you to be nicer to fellow contributors.

 * I apologize if I was impolite. I agree that Otaheite deserves a redirect - in fact, I already created it.
 * P.S.: Sorry once again. -- Mike Rosoft 07:58, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Another comment: I have thougt about it, and I am afraid I don't believe that Otaheite is a valid subject for a separate article (just like Praha wouldn't have been a valid article separate from Prague). Instead, I would suggest including the relevant information in the main article (Tahiti), or - possibly - in a new article about etymology of the names.
 * Regards, Mike Rosoft 13:10, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * You've 'won' this because I got bored with it. Eventually, it will have to end up the right way. Whether that's what you think it is or what I think it is has yet to be determined, and is exponentially more relative than thinking about something that is intuitively sensible.--TaranRampersad 18:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Linux Gazette POV
Some questions. I'm a LinuxGazette.net volunteer/author, but I'm also a Wikipedian -- please treat this as you would a message from any other Wikipedian.

 * "It has since become more functional than Linux Journal's site, and has become an online community of note."

'of note'? I'm not questioning that, but can you provide any references? Can you provide some examples of how it is more functional than "Linux Journal's" site? If not, these are opinions and should be quoted as such.
 * "However, SSC has held a trademark in the State of Washington prior to this."

Is there any proof of this? Otherwise it would be more correct to say "However, SSC claim to have held a trademark in the State of Washington prior to this."

This last paragraph poses a real problem for me:
 * "SSC has tried communicating with LinuxGazette.net volunteers repeatedly, requesting that the LinuxGazette.net volunteers simply change the name to avoid problems. LinuxGazette.net volunteers do not feel that they need to change the name, and as such it is apparent legal action may be necessary."

I'll take the end of that first: "as such it is apparent legal action may be necessary." Apparent to whom? "SSC feel it is apparent", perhaps? (And, IMO, you mean "it is apparent legal action shall be necessary")

The thing I really have to question here is 'repeatedly'. Ben Okopnik, the current editor of LinuxGazette.net, says he has received one email from SSC since the split: from you. Try "SSC claim to have tried..." -- Jim Regan 00:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Answers: -> Yes. There is more functionality made available to users. From blogs to other things, there are constant evolutions in the LinuxGazette.com site that are above and beyond Linux Journal.

Yes, SSC has held a trademark in Washington. It's a fact. Proof comes in the way of hard copy, and unfortunately there will be only one way in which that will be delivered. It will always be questioned until it comes in hard copy.

Okopnik was not the only person contacted, either, Jim. Email me if you want the correspondence dating back from the origins of this mess. I'm cnd_AT_knowprose.com. --TaranRampersad 04:15, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Functionality: what you wrote here is pretty much what I was looking for. Add it.

Trademark: Surely there's a reference you can point to? Not necessarily a link, but a registration number, perhaps?

Correspondance: Sure, I'd be interested. I'm willing to accept that I don't know the whole story.

"Bring facts, Jim": I did. I pointed out one specific example (Talk:Linux Gazette) of content that was removed after publication, which includes an assertion that Linux Gazette was to no longer be edited, two of the Answer Gang's main reasons for moving. -- Jim Regan 12:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This was emailed back and forth a bit, for the record. There was also no progress other than the opinions of people who are not lawyers (including myself), and no resolution was found. Maybe a solution will be found without lawyers, which is what I sincerely wish would happen. But it's out of my hands now. --TaranRampersad 01:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RepRap
I've left a message for you at Talk:RepRap and removed the speedy tag. Good luck editing that one! :) Sarg 18:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Good job! Sarg 10:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sarg. It was pretty straightforward, though a browser crash had me do it twice. Argh. :-) --TaranRampersad 14:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Caribbean Wikpedians
I am trying to set up a Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board as a place to build community and try to bring an overall focus to Caribbean topics. It you're interested I'd love to have your input on how to develop the project. The page has links to the other national/regional noticeboards, so you can have at what others do. Guettarda 1 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)

Biopiracy NPOV tag
Do not remove the NPOV tag on Biopiracy. The article is in terrible shape. I've taken a stab at fixing it, but even I can tell it's nowhere near NPOV. You can tell by simply looking at the sources that are cited at the bottom. Mmmbeer 22:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry if you think that I have somehow injected my own POV into the Biopiracy article, but I'm not sure how that can possibly be. I've removed the rants.  Biopiracy, by definition, is a pejorative term for allegedly exploitive use of intellectual property rights.  I'm sorry if you think this is a political issue upon which to rant about commercialization or the patent system, but clearly this is not the correct forum.  It's also not a good place for debates about genetically modified foods.
 * That said, feel free to add laws, political policies, or jurisprudence which contribute to "biopiracy." Mmmbeer 01:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

--TaranRampersad 05:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Do whatever you want, boyo. We'll fix it when you're done, and until WE fix it it will remain NPOV. I won't fight you. We'll just make sure that, despite your unilateral NPOV, we fix the article - even if it means rolling it back. US IP law is a small segment in the world. Grow outside of your education.
 * I'm not sure which Biopiracy page you're looking at exactly, but the NPOV tag has been removed. After several edits, it's much, much closer to NPOV now than it was before I started.  Besides, looking at the history of the page, I'm not the only one to have put up the NPOV first--a notable other law wiki person (non-US) had it and you removed it. The rants were blatant and obvious. Mmmbeer 10:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * That would be YOUR perspective on Biopiracy. Not impressed.

User Categorisation
You were listed on the Wikipedians/Trinidad and Tobago page as living in or being associated with Trinidad and Tobago. As part of the User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Trinidad and Tobago for instructions.--Rmky87 03:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Editing your own article
Just a short note about the article Taran Rampersad: if you find inaccuracies, then my suggestion is to note this on the talk page. If you find a spelling mistake, why not edit it anyway? :P Ta bu shi da yu 00:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, well, there is that. But I want to completely avoid my name showing up in any revisions of the document...
 * What Ta bu shi da yu says is not entirely correct. As Autobiography specifies: "However, in clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. So, you can revert vandalism; but of course it has to be simple, obvious vandalism, and not just a content dispute. Similarly, you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on", so therefore if you find any factual inaccuracies please feel free to correct them, even using your logged in username. jaco ♫ plane  18:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for this tip, it's very useful. I didn't even know that a guideline existed for autobiographies.--TaranRampersad 03:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

 * It's true, just be careful. Even Jimbo Wales edited his own entry on Wikipedia, and he has said it lead to a "loss of dignity". That's why I advised you in the way I did. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I am still going to try to avoid editing the entry at all. The original premise I started with remains the same... and it's reflected in the guidelines which I had not read (which is really a good thing). I leave notes on the Talk page, I leave it at that. I'll admit, the entry is a curiosity for me. As it is, I can give people information on myself, but I can't put it in the article. The fact that I belong to organizations which do not have a strong web presence is somewhat amusing, because they are unverifiable. :-) --TaranRampersad 14:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:WhiteLinedTanagerTopMaleBottomFemale.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:WhiteLinedTanagerTopMaleBottomFemale.JPG. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 15:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Images
Thanks for the offer. Great to see you back. Any images are much appreciated, of course. I have looked through your flickr site before and I got the impression that they were cc by nc, and so unavailable for WP. Still is great to see pix from home...and I asked a friend to ID a bird you had a question about a few months back (did you ever hear from her?) Guettarda 16:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I used your Last Train picture of a stub about the Trinidad Government Railway. If you ever are on South Quay and can get a pic of the facade of the old building, that might be a nice addition, as might any old rail bridges, that kind of thing (though, as far as I can tell from Michael Anthony's book, the lines that ran east from San Fernando to Williamsville and Princes Town were part of the Cipero Tramway, so those bridges, while still worth taking before they all disappear, would probably not be useful in the TGR article.  (BTW, I had seen the your article before.  Kinda cool).  Guettarda 16:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I'll see what I can do. With images I pointed at, just let me know if you want to use... I can change the license as necessary; I only have that license so that it isn't used in commercial works unless I say so. :-)

AfD Process
Before you go around accusing established editors of not following policy properly please see the history of the AfD discussions and you will find the first edit to the page where I properly began the AfD process. Other users moved my nomination and wrote on top of it. This is what you may have seen which made you believe that I did not nominate the article properly. I also updated my nomination throughout the discussion which is acceptable and not against any Wikipedia policy. The article was properly nominated. Please review the policy at WP:AGF before you attack and insult other editors. Please also remember that it is against policy to edit a closed AfD discussion. Thank you. --Strothra 19:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Look, Strothra, I apologize if I made a mistake but I left that quite open in case I did make a mistake. However, the facts are and remain quite muddy. Your handling of the situation is not something I can comment on because I do not have the details. Hopefully the administrators do their jobs. Meanwhile, I don't see you as any better than anyone else - so chill out. :-) Nobody's dieing. Now, in my opinion, your nominating it for deletion is questionable - and that is my opinion regardless of what the Grand Poobahs decide. Their decision does not change mine. I don't like the article, but I also don't like people walking around and posting deletion notices because they felt like it - and I think that's what you did, because the substantiation seems rather weak. But that, of course, is my opinion and subject to change with new data. But rather than nitpick this instance, I'm just going to keep an eye on things posted for deletion. Since you're a deletionist, or so you say, you can expect to see me again. Keep your ducks in formation. :-) --TaranRampersad 22:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

 * WP policies are still WP policies. You may question all you wish but my AfD nom, especially as it is now, is well reasoned and it will be nominated again after a few months if it not brought into compliance with Wikipedia policies.  Further, you should not attack or insult other editors and their motives.  Once again, I direct you to WP:AGF.  You are also urged to be more precise with your comments.  If you mean to say that a user did not follow a policy correctly there are channels for arbitration for that.  You should use them instead of insulting the editor - an action which is against policy.  Tact goes a long way.  Basically, look before you leap.  This is the last I will comment on this subject. --Strothra 23:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I did not attack or insult you, and at this point I am beginning to consider it because you are beginning to become offensive to me. I do find your motives questionable. That is not an insult, that's my perspective and an observation. I am urging you to stay off my talk page with something that I believe to be resolved, or perhaps you can nominate my talk page for deletion. :-) Bear in mind that I, too, am an editor, and you should take your own advice. Now be done with it. Hugs and kisses. --TaranRampersad 23:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Outside observation
Hey -- this is a response to your request on my talk page. I think you should be careful in claiming that other users aren't acting in good faith (ie, Strothra's deletion nomination/vote), without a clear reason. Assume good faith is one of the central tenets of WP after all. I'm not going to vote in the AfD, as it seems there are plenty of people involved already. However, I can see why the article is nominated for deletion: it contains hardly any information, and claims a low level of importance.. it's a classic deletion candidate. You said you don't care much one way or another (this seems to be the position of most reasonable people in your position, I've come across a few before), but you might consider improving the article if you can make it more clear why people should want to read a biography about you. It's okay to edit an article on yourself, as long as you are careful to be neutral and back up your information with sources. FWIW, I don't think you were making personal attacks against Strothra. My advice is to disengage. Let me know if you continue to feel hostility from Strothra and I'll look into it and warn him if it's appropriate. Mango juice talk 06:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks, I'll follow your advice and disengage. My assessment is based on past experience as well. However, I always get a strong sense of "I'm the only one who knows the rules and therefore I'm always right" from him, which I consider extremely dangerous when mixed with whatever a self-described deletionist actually is. I typically do assume good faith, but I sincerely believe that the AfD process is being bastardized from it's original spirit. Where I am, I'm trying to encourage use of the Wikipedia. I've written often enough about it. But when people can just assign pages for deletion (I mean, I could...) and the same names keep popping up, there's a big question that starts forming. So I'm on record for saying that. I'm very tired of this sort of thing. It takes away from things. I was going to add information on Bonnie Bracey - but who would put in effort when there's a big deletion notice at the top? And I have all sorts of stuff for other things that I want to add... but you know, this stuff takes it's toll. I'm not looking up to the Wikipedia like I used to. I'm seeing the emperor has no clothes.

And for the record, I haven't looked for this person. His name just keeps popping up. Very disturbing. I'll start editing again when I feel like it, because right now I just really don't feel like it. --TaranRampersad 08:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Further... Harassment seems to be exactly what is being done. Strothra even edited the discussion to remove the things said there. --TaranRampersad 21:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The discussion was not removed but moved to the discussion page of the AfD as is common practice in AfD's when discussion does not concern the article. That's what the AfD's talk page is for.  Anyway, I for one feel that you would make a great editor but you're still new so you should be more open to guidance and not become upset so easily.  I will tell you that, I have higher standards for inclusion than most do but that's because my view of what an encyclopedia should be is more "by-the-book" since people use Wikipedia as a source, and sometimes their first and only source, for information on a topic.  Too often are articles on Wikipedia filled with false statements and unverified facts because the bar for research if far too low.  Wikipedia has the potential to be both a very positive and very dangerous tool for the public.  Do not take my comments as attacks but merely as attempts to guide you.  You have the ability to read Wiki policy or not to and, of course, you are allowed to ignore all the rules (that's a policy too, oddly enough).  I ask you to stay or to come back after time but be willing to compromise with other editors who are trying to build a more verifiable and stronger encyclopedia.  I've seen too many students fall into traps because of Wikipedia.  I guess part of my "mission" here is to promote an encyclopedia with high standards.  It's unfortunate that the truly great encyclopedias such as Britannica are not free as Wikipedia is.  Since, Wikipedia is free, however, it should hold itself responsible to the people it attempts to inform. For the record, I do not also promote deletion and actively support keeping articles that are properly cited using verifiable sources.  --Strothra 01:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've said what I have had to say, I have disengaged, and I do not really want to hear anything more from you. You win. I won't be editing the Wikipedia until I feel like it, and your actions have had a direct effect on that. Congratulations. I trust you'll feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Now leave me be. --TaranRampersad 04:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope you reconsider and stick around (we need more Trinis). But I don't suppose there's much you can do when people choose to be assholes.  If it isn't fun there's no point to be here.  Remember, there are more important things to think about - like beating England ;)  Guettarda 04:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but - if everything that people start contributing and fleshing out is going to be deleted instead of made better, I believe that the Wikipedia has lost it's spirit. People in ICT and working on digital divide issues are apparently being singled out. By the very nature of digital divide issues, references online are still being built around the world. I view this as a cultural censorship of the Wikipedia, especially if self-proclaimed deletionists can run around and do whatever they want and hide behind processes. I was pro-Wikipedia, but right now... I don't really care too much for it. I've written strong articles advocating the Wikipedia; I've gone to bat for the Wikipedia in many circles and have done so with personal insults leveled at me. Well, if this is the direction the Wikipedia is taking, if this is the way the grand poobahs want things - I can see why there is negative press related to the Wikipedia. The emperor has no clothes, and I can thank Strothra for setting me right. I can't in good spirit tell people that they should participate in the Wikipedia if deletionists are more concerned with deleting than adding value. Strothra has decided to not add value, because if he followed the links on the talk pages for many articles, he would have seen much more. There's no punitive measures to be taken for people who wantonly post things for deletion and yet they critique the people who create. What kind of silly process is that? I'll see how I feel about this in a week (I have to cremate an Uncle in an hour), and depending on how I feel I'll write about it off the Wikipedia. And from there, let the Wikipedia handle it's business as it sees fit. I'm now an outsider looking in, no longer a participant. Wikipedia Processes and Strothra have determined this. --TaranRampersad 13:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear about your uncle. Focus on what's important - you and your family.  Guettarda 13:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
I just wanted to let you know I have 'prodded' Alcohol receiver - it was on the verify list, and frankly it doesn't seem to me to merit an article at all. If you want to discuss, use the article's talk page. --Brianyoumans 16:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your vote to retain the XPLANE page. I would like to add more information on some of the methodologies but will refrain till I see the outcome. I appreciate your comments. dgray_xplane

Hello again. The XPLANE article has been revided and is up for deletion review. I'd appreciate it if you took a look at the revised article at User:Dgray xplane/XPLANE and weighed in on the deletion review process at Deletion review/Log/2006 November 24Dgray xplane

Thank you again for your comments. I am learning a lot about Wikipedia and you are helping a lot. Much appreciated. Dgray xplane 18:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Zanta
Note that Zanta has been restored, and place on AfD for a proper deletion debate. -- Zanimum 14:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation
Thomas Carter (inventor) was deleted for being a copyright violation, as you would have discovered if you had followed the prominent link to the deletion log on the page right in front of you when you edited it. Furthermore it was not, contrary to your edit summary when you re-created the article, originally submitted by you. The original editor was. The text that you re-added was exactly the same copyright violation as before. I have deleted it. Please write in your own words, citing sources, or not at all. Read the Copyright policy for more information. Uncle G 20:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. Well then, I'm not going to edit that one again. It's more important for people to delete it than correct it. I'm familiar with Wikipedia copyright policy, thank you very much. Incidentally, there was no link to a deletion log that I was aware of... I'll look for that in the future. I honestly thought I was the original author of that entry - in fact, I could swear I was - but hey, the way things get whacked around here, who cares, right? Thanks for your explanation, that IS appreciated. :-)--TaranRampersad 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Refs

 * He has spoken at conferences in St. Lucia and Trinidad and Tobago related to Free Software and Open Source, but no web references are available.

Are you aware of any non-web refs? Guettarda 19:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Would you be willing to enable your email address for a bit? Guettarda 19:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Blue-gray Tanager
I changed the image because the previous was small and blur. You can't see the detail of bird. "Frankly, it looks suspect in my eyes" = your opinion, what can I say ? FYI, you are allowed to change/edit freely (not vandalize) on Wiki. Just change back, if you feel your image more informative. That happened to me and everybody. I rather using my time to create or edit an article instead of arguing. If easily offended, do not Wiki. Cheers --Stavenn 13:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Placed back on your talk page, where the discussion is. I'm not offended, but it seems you are. I'm sorry for pointing out how other people may feel. I assumed good, I would think you would as well. Had I not assumed good I would have rolled back the picture. --TaranRampersad 16:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So it's not that you got offended because I replaced your image, that you sent me a message ? Assumed NEVER good. It always leads to negative, misleading or wrong info. Too much assume = became a drama queen. There is no Good Assume. It's a BS. I can't see which part is good. I rather people speak up their mind and ask, better than assuming. You don't need anybody approval to do what you got to do. There's my opinion. Back to the bird: you said the picture lacks color which is an important part of the bird's appearance, and that would be ....? image was taken about 40cm distance from the object, not from far away. --Stavenn 19:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, if I were offended I would have replaced the image. Your image does not show the colors of the tanager very well - period. I had thought you would see the point and take it constructively, but since that is not the case, I'll simply note to myself that you are not someone who allows for being wrong. Good day. :-) --TaranRampersad 20:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

== Image:Palm tanager.jpg listed for deletion == Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Palm tanager.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission.  While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, a non-profit website, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-2.5 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Media copyright questions. Thank you. == Image:Blue-gray tanager.jpg listed for deletion == Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Blue-gray tanager.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission.  While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, a non-profit website, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-2.5 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Media copyright questions. Thank you.

 * Pilotguy, I uploaded the pictures once and noted the license properly. A 'speedy deletion' is silly even if I did not mark them appropriately; there was no time for someone on a WIKIBREAK to respond. I see this as just more of 'Meet the New Boss, Same As The Old Boss' of the Wikipedia. Congratulations. --TaranRampersad 06:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

problem administrators
You are encouraged to report problem administrators to WP:AN. I have had similar problems with specific users. Sorry that some people here are assholes. ... aa:talk 07:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The Latin-American Wikipedia Meeting

Tosão (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Andycarvin.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Andycarvin.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Icterus nigrogularis.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Icterus nigrogularis.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon in Madison

 * ART+FEMINISM EDIT-A-THON

 * Saturday, March 5th, 9:30 a.m. – noon
 * Madison Public Library (Madison, Wisconsin)
 * Bring a laptop! There will be snacks and daycare

RSVP on the event page if you plan to attend or have any suggestions. czar 00:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

 * You received this message because you are a member of Category:Wikipedians in Wisconsin. To opt-in to future Madison event messages, add yourself to the mailing list.

Speedy deletion nomination of CARDICIS

A tag has been placed on CARDICIS requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. ThePortaller (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

title: User talk:TaranRampersad


text:
User:Rboatright

Hi, happy to be here. Editing the wiki since 9 Feb 2003

Principal interests:

 * Topeka, Kansas and the history and the surrounding area
 * Bahá'í Faith 'cause I'm co-moderator of usenet soc.religion.bahai
 * NFL -- no not the football people, the National Forensics League which I judge and coach for at high school speech contests.

Current Project: Monitoring Baha'i Pages. No "new" projects. Anyway, that's my plan

User:Rboatright/sandbox

title: User:Rboatright


text:
User talk:Rboatright

/archive Discussions prior to April 2005

Great job
Great job improving the DDNP article. Thanks!--Fourier1789 (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Nitram0002 etc
Just in case you thought that incrementing the username really did work for avoiding the Three revert rule, it doesn't. Although I never normally block for excessive reverts, Martin has made so many in the past day or so that I'm blocking his main account for 24 hours for that. I'm adding 3 days for 3 sock puppets (though I think there may have been 4), 1 day for foul personal attacks and 1 for using open proxies. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

yeah, but he just keeps incrementing.

Now that they've closed off open proxies, what can we do to stop his nitro00xx series? Rick Boatright 20:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Block on sight. I think it's close to arbcom level now, but I don't want to take on the case myself. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:24, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you want it to be reverted, just ask on the talk page and somebody else will probably do it. The more people join in and revert the better. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you want it protected, I can do that, but I'm reluctant to do so because then nobody would be able to edit the article at all. Ask on WP:RFPP if you want it done anyhow. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For arbitration, go to WP:RFAR. Copy the template on that page and fill it out, and add it to the list of arbitration requests. Then write a message on his talk page with a wikilink pointint to WP:RFAR. If you do this I will unblock him so that he can respond to the case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Abdu'l-Baha photo
I have no opinion on the photo (more correctly I don't care enough to form one)I'm simply reverting/banning those socks on sightGeni 22:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New anon user
Just to fill you in the guy has a bit of a bee in his bonnet about the Baha'is for some reason (24.6.117.96 contribs and 67.188.7.127 contribs). I suspect he may well be a Bayani which is interesting. I think he got quite annoyed because I reverted his NPOV edits within 10-15 mins of him submitting them. One or two edits were reasonable though (such as the deleting the bit that said Subh-i Azal "allowed the idea of religious power to pursue his own personal gain").

You'll also notice the start of the article Baha'i election. -- Tomhab 15:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh great - you've NPOVed it. I've just started the page Bahá'í administration and made it nice, including critisisms. I'd like to migrate the elections page over as its a bit of a "spare limb" page. Bahá'í administration can be built into a generally useful article. -- Tomhab 16:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why Ringo
Well, it's because I done very little edits on Eric Flint's page, and (long ago) I did more to Ringo (IIRC because Ringo had a homepage I could search for bio-info and such). The list is supposed to be only those articles I contributed to in some major way. I added 1632 series to it now. It does seem as the page is not much edited, though :( I expected more barflies would edit it... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
It's appreciated ChristianEdwardGruber 15:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Outdated Talk Pages
What's the purpose of keeping outdated talk pages? I can understand keeping them if information/questions on them hasn't been answered/fulfilled, but once all questions/requests have been answered by the article there isn't really a useful purpose to keep the old messages around. If someone wants to see the old talk page, he/she can simply go to the history. The page in question I'm specifically referring to is Talk:U.S._five-dollar_bill.

DieYuppieScum June 15, 2005

Duplicate Citation in Aurangzeb
The citation was not an insertion, it was copied from further down the article and put in a out of context manner. Please check the article, you'd see the citation appropriately done in a later section in the existing version. thanks. --Ragib 18:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * You added inserted the duplicate comment quite some time ago, would you mind removing the duplicated comment by Richards? The comment can be found in a later section of the article in the appropriate context. I do not want to touch your edit, without violating the 3RR, so can please you take a look at the article and undo the duplication your edit added? Thanks. --Ragib 21:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on Aurangzeb
Hi, Just wanted to tell you that I appreciate the work you are doing there. I would have participated in cleaning up, but since has specific objections to my editing styles, I better not start a revert-war. I hope, as a neutral observer, you'd make the article as NPOV as possible. Thanks for the work on Shah Jahan too, keep up the good work. --Ragib 4 July 2005 04:50 (UTC)

Brown
Good work on Brown v. Board. I don't know enough about Gebhart v. Belton to be useful -- Jmabel | Talk July 8, 2005 21:20 (UTC)

Brown v. Board of Education
You Rick Boatright ask: "Why did you capitalize African-American?" (in Brown v. Board of Education)

I capitalized it (and put in a hyphen) because that's the way the term is styled in the cited Wikipedia reference African-American_history. -- User 157.193.53.49, 14 July 2005.

"Lay judges"
I agree. And I give you a 30! PS-I debated "national circuit" at Glenbrook South and Woodward Academy, and this type of arrogance pisses me off too. Tfine80 02:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Fudge Family
I'm dying of curiosity: why have you redirected this to Thomas Moore? Gamaliel 00:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Barnstars
Barnstar of Diligence for work on the Bahá'í Pages

For services rendered to the Bahá'í pages (and there are a bewildering array of very obscure ones) I, MARussellPESE, present Rboatright the Barnstar of Diligence which is awarded here in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service. These pages are the better for your services.

Also awarded to, in no particular order: PaulHammond, Occamy, Geni, Rboatright, and Tomhab.

Baha'i Faith wikinews
Rick,

Can I ask your advice on a wiki project I'm thinking of starting? I've noticed you seem to have quite a bit of experience on the Baha'i Faith wikipedia pages so I would apreciate any guidance / thoughts you might have.

The project is along the lines of the www.yahoogroups.com/Bahaimonitor egroup and the existing wikinews project for Quakers. The idea is to publish news stories in two categories:

1) Where newspapers have reported a Baha'i story (e.g. The Scotsman re the new Baha'i Centre in Edinburgh)

2) Original reporting, e.g. of consultations at National Convention or results of elections.

At the moment I'm wondering:

1) Would this sort of project be welcomed by the wikimedia community 2) Would there be much interest in reading such articles 3) Would there be much help collaborating writing these articles 4) How would the wider Baha'i community react - e.g. would the institutions be negative, would srb help in publicising/supporting it (I notice you say you're a moderator)

Any indicators you could give me wodl be most appreciated!

AndrewRT 21:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi there. Did anything come of this idea? I currently have Google News list articles on the Baha'i Faith. If I knew there was a place I could add them to, I'd love to help. Yours Jlavezzo 19:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Am I being serious though?
I don't want to sound like I'm trying to be funny, but have you ever thought about contributing a photo' of the Westboro Baptist Church compound? It's text-only description can let a reader's imagination run wild and perhaps a picture could stop one from thinking of it as being far more "impressive" than it truly is. - Aaron Jethro 15:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Aaron. I'd like to add, you're really brave, to practice Baha'i near that jack@$$.--Jnelson09 19:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

New article
I've just created an article, Bahá'í literature, that could probably use your input. It's based on the big bibliography I've been keeping on my talk page and thought deserved an article of it's own. It should dovetail into the other individual articles well. MARussellPESE 20:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:TopekaFlag.png
Thanks for uploading Image:TopekaFlag.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Rossrs 14:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Pipefish.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Pipefish.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 01:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Autostereogram
I've nominated Autostereogram for Featured Article status, and I see from the talk page that you were quite involved with creating the fantastic article that is there now. I thought you'd like to know, both for self-gratification and so that you have a chance to take part in the process. I don't think I know enough about the subject to address many of the issues that could be raised, especially as I don't see any problems with it at all! Skittle 16:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Us bahai how.jpeg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Us bahai how.jpeg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. - SCEhard T 03:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Bahai-how panama.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bahai-how panama.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. - SCEhard T 03:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bahai how kampala.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bahai how kampala.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

 * P.S. This also applies to Image:Bahai how samoa.jpg

Hi Rick,

I don't know if the stuff above is still current, but a Baha'i who puts her photos on Flickr a lot, Laili Towfiq, has several outstanding pictures of the Mothertemple of Africa. She may be interested in contributing them to Wikipeadia.

Also on a slightly related note, I found that a large portion of my project on the House of Worship for Ishkabad had been archived by Casper Voogt, with my name spelled wrong. I've put them up at Lavezzo.com. The important thing here is that I've got the bibliography back, so citations for photographs are possible. See my article on it on my blog. Jlavezzo 19:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No pages on some prominent Baha'is
Hi Rick, I've dropped a couple comments in lines above, but the main reason I came to your talk page is because I couldn't find a page on Eric Dozier. I have a feeling there are several other noteable Baha'is who could have pages as well. Particularly performing artists who might be touring where a Wikipeadia page on them would be appriciated by someone who didn't know them who might be thinking of attending a show.

Is there a list somewhere of like requested pages or something of this sort or have I just found ANNOTHER project for my non-existant free time?

Jlavezzo 19:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Image publication date impossibility
Hi. Way back in 2003, you claimed Image:Bahai how ashkabad.jpg, which you uploaded, was published before 1900. This is clearly impossible, since the building was only constructed in 1908 (see Bahá'í House of Worship). It still may be PD, but it has to have been published before 1923; since the building was still standing many years after 1923, this may not be the case. If you have any verifiable knowledge of when it was published, it'd be much appreciated. Cheers. Telso 09:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam in University of Saint Mary (Kansas)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on University of Saint Mary (Kansas), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because University of Saint Mary (Kansas) is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting University of Saint Mary (Kansas), please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate University of Saint Mary (Kansas) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 23:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion review request
Per your request at Deletion Review, I have copied the text from the deleted page University of Saint Mary (Kansas) and posted it in a new page in your user space. You can find the article User:Rboatright/USMK. This page sounds does sound like it was copied directly from a college brochure. If you plan to re-create the article, please write an objective and comprehensive article on the college. When you are finished with this user sub-page, place the tag db-userreq (user-requested deletion) at the top of the page and send me a message, and then I will delete if for you. If you have any questions, please leave me a message on my talk page. ●DanMS • Talk 04:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you check over
... the technical issues/history reported in Baen Books (specifically Baen's Bar), as reconstituted from the fiery deletionist's inferno AND in particular, see what needs changed to reflect the new software. I figure I didn't break Jim Baen too badly, but if you feel like checking that, or expanding, t'would be good too. Drop me a ping on my talk when you get this, please. Thanks (I'm w/o email at the moment, pending construction completion!) // Fra nkB 16:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks! I wasn't too worried about it, as so much tech-speak is just gobble-gobbles to those of us in ignorance, but it's good to cross the eyes and dot one's tees! I was more worried you'd be a long time seeing the above message!

Take some time to explore and  and pass the word to any barflies you know that contribute here. Little by little, writing here about 1632 matters is getting much easier with the section linking templates I've been putting up... synopses and character sketching are getting downright easy. 1632 series battles and 1632 institutions provide a lot of valuable "glue" allowing much simplified decriptive verbiage... and so forth. I've even figured on splitting the characters articles in the template set, and made it so when that happens, things work out quickly. But the bottle neck is getting synopses together...

You REALLY need a preview and two step save facility process on messaging on ericflint.net. I think I posted a "response" message by "laptop accident", so to speak, which if so, ends in mid word as my fat fingers either dragged down to the save button, or hit a control code and aborted after oh, ten minutes of effort... Then I couldn't relocate the post to which I was replying... which is the guy (do recall the message was numbered ca. 45-46) waxing enthusiastically about calculus and mathematicians and the potential for stories... he even gave some ages for some of the polymaths of the day. If you see that, revise and edit the end for me if you can... that was pretty much the last sentence and it should be clear what I was saying. [duh... submit to the GG's!] And again, on the bar edit, thanks! [T'would be nice if you can provide a link to the beginning of the snippets chain as well... for those of us who tune in late and rarely!] ttfn! // Fra nkB 19:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Another need
My computer downloads and printed copies are walled off behind a plastic barrier and inaccessible to me for the moment... Can you ask Paula G. to drop a list of stories with authors for the GG's including and past Grantville Gazette V [contrast with the TOC here]... which was the issue when the title only Table of Contents "style" began without any "by Loren Jones", "by Annette M. Pederson", etc. This would be a big help as I could get together the tables on 1632 writers in one swell foop a good month before I can get back to my desktop's hard drive or paper copies; just have her drop a text file in/on my talk and I'll park it properly. The other factor in this is technical... the 32stories template was causing a recursive bloat and hitting it's head on pre-expansion limits on a page... The sooner I get most stuff up using that, the surer I can be sooner our efforts to fix the problem are thankfully far in the rear view mirror... or need to come up with a plan "D" instead.

With that done, I'll make a pass through all the print publications and bring those up to snuff by the time my office is back together. Or at least progress along the lines of that goal. 1634: The Galileo Affair is a disgrace, given the lag time, and I know I just stubbed in next to nothing on 1634: The Bavarian Crisis! Feel free to tell Eric and Jimbo they should both pay me better!  Thanks! // Fra nkB 19:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks Rick, I didn't know the dot com had the earlier titles. Thanks // Fra nkB 21:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Which raises another issue... ownership relationship of grantvillegazette.com to Baen and EricFlint Enterprises. I know Baen had contracted for the first ten... then what happened? Eric even disappeared from the Baen Website there for a while—around three months or so, iirc. I know I emailed him on that. Maybe even twice.

 * Would probably be best if you just updated The Grantville Gazettes main article with any and all "fixes" since you're integral involved behind the scenes and can keep the guessing down to a minimum. Did you proof that part of on that aspect? ... Looks like you either blessed it, or ignored it!

 * Your:Baen's Bar is the only submission mechanisms for submitting stories to two professional SF Magazines. All stories submitted to the Grantville Gazette must be submitted through the 1632 Slush conference on the Bar, and all stories submitted for the "introducing" slots in Jim Baen's Universe must be submitted through the Universe Slush conference.

 * would indicate Baen's still has a significant monetary interest. [Good add, btw, Kudos!]

 * Thanks. One of us, or some other barfly like Piotr (possibly Wwoods?) ought to add some other authors with forums on the bar sidebar, I'd think... The other "key-ish" issue that needs some thinking and a way of settling for future updates is who is actually a Baen Author... see the list I tacked into talk:Jim Baen on that... which is off webwrights.

 * Is webrights a subsidiary (as I infer, or an independent entity, which would contradict one or both articles)? In any event, anyone with "real knowledge" vice my guesses would be and should be watching this kind of thing. I've certainly some serious reservations about claiming departed authors, such as RAH to take one glaring example, as a Baen author on that list if the relationship with webwrights is distant at best. Prior content and the Baen bio article represent webwrights as Jim Baen's, or Baen Books', so I see no reason to change that, unless you know otherwise. In any event, AT LEAST! I AIM to get stubs together for the first ten gazettes sometime today! Thanks! // Fra nkB  21:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes Lots!!! Though I've seen something by Eric about the ten GG's and a 'contract' with Baen... or may have been a 'subsequent' handshake understanding... and I can't check the email records till the construction crew gives me a clean environment and I get back to my main machine. OTOH, that's NBD. The big news is Webscriptions is essentially independent, albeit in close association with Baen's, and that will keep the mistakes to a minimum. What people challenge otherwise depends on whether it seems questionable or such. If I had to worry about cites for everything I know, I'd never get anything added to much of anything. I got GG05 up today, but got side-tracked a bit doing up TOC templates. The current "section titles" and general look/see/feel are under revision while I've got GG04's hood up and done except for the save. Thanks // Fra nkB  05:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Another need2
Have you got a definitive date on when Baen's Bar began operation? // Fra nkB 19:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * GREAT ANSWER... vry mch appreciated! // Fra nkB 19:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

think read slow
re: ''You realize that prior to 1997, Baen's bar existed as a topic area inside Jerry Pournelle's forums on BIX right? Bix was shut down in 2001, but was effectivly dead by the time the bar opened in '97. brief history here'' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte_Information_Exchange ...
 * No, I was a hardware guru in that era and really didn't browse the web until getting a AOL account in the early ninties (?late eighties???), and that channeled me, obviously. My Kids came along too (90 + 91). On computers, I tended to be writing stuff in C, or for Grad school needs (late eighties). By the late eighties I'd decided sturgeon's law pretty much applied to most "News", and it wasn't worth my time. ("Thanks school!") I stopped watching TV news and such, most TV, and am still informationally speaking, "withdrawn", even today. Shrug. Let's me have time to read things I enjoy, and do whatever ... time is precious.

 * By the time I dropped AOL, my eyes were changing and working more on computers all day, I really didn't need more eyestrain. That really applies to the days I visited the bar. The email interface killed me, and the newsreader I got ... well, I don't think I ever did figure out how to post with it. I'd too much on my plate otherwise, as we ended up moving up here... which meant I was doing a whole lot of construction to prep first a planned expansion of our old place, wasting 15 months with an archetect and builders only to find what we wanted to do was too costly and ... so then had to move. Also, little league and soccer coaching, boy scouts, etc. were big time sinks.

 * I only found Eric because I found 1633 in paperback... and visited the bar shortly after that. I was smart enough (sic) to pick up 1632 the same day, though!  I can probably blame 1632 for finding wikipedia as well... all the place and people mentions... soon after I had to scratch itches and fix things which I knew were incomplete or wrong, or out of context (all the youngsters here lack perspective, mostly), and so forth. Eventually I signed in, and... well, can't keep away very well, at least not until I get 1632 stuff up to grade. I used to waste time on the sister sites too, but now tend to avoid all but the commons.

 * Note btw, the reformatting I did to your drop. i, 1 and 2/i2 and i5 all help in such situations. Thanks again, cheers! ttfn! // Fra nkB 19:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bahai how tehran.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Bahai how tehran.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Save_Us _ 229  09:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Slushpile WTH!
Just sampling the slushpile and found SILVER AGE... http://bar.baen.com/baen.1632Slush/69/SILVER-AGE.html, what the heck are all the formatting codes that aren't translating to HTML/unicode, or whatever? Firefox is displaying little diamonds with question marks, for example, at either end of "Missy, can you come over here?"... and all over the place otherwise. Looks like at the beginning and end of each phrase/sentence. Querp! // Fra nkB 22:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Got it... Blame Virginia!  Thanks! // 04:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabartus (talk • contribs)

GG errata
re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1632_writers&diff=182610188&oldid=182573890, your pages missing GG03 references/credits. // Fra nkB 22:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bahai how tehran.jpg
Being quite frank, the sarcasm used on the fair use rationale and the point for point checklist of each thing a fair use rationale needs, was inappropriate. A simple rationale like every other image is all that was needed. — Save_Us   †  04:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Dated, and then some
Ahem: http://www.ericflint.net/index.php/2007/01/17/225/#more-225

 * T'would be far more rewarding to check those pages were there a better degree of regular news updating. I care pfiffle about snippets, being minded such that I can't eat but one potato chip either, so avoid until the gestalt is out... but would be nice to know what's in the pipeline!

 * Be well... I've pretty much (at least for now) withdrawn my support for this community over 1632 Editorial Board. Fiction notability, and all that is a bit too much to bear on top of a thankless task from the gitgo. When the deletionists can't see an article supporting tens of other articles is both wise and beyond convenient, well... no reason to go on wasting time adding if some idiot can slap a speedy delete on it without considering how such impacts other pages. Best! // Fra nkB 15:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:3dlogo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:3dlogo.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --21:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: brown edits
Sorry, "npov" might not have been the best summary. The material claimed that the case was "the most famous", which had no reliable source, so anyone could have just said that. Also, that text said it was "undoubtedly the most famous" or something like that. Why undoubtedly? There are probably doubts out there, and again, there were no sources. The verifiability policy says that "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed...", and while it says that "...editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references", I think five years is more than enough.

I'd agree to putting it back, but only if a reliable source can be found. Green caterpillar (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:TopekaCityCrest.png
Thanks for uploading Image:TopekaCityCrest.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

File:Nps.gov logo.PNG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nps.gov logo.PNG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Bahai_how_tehran.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bahai_how_tehran.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Briggs v. Elliott
If you are still interested in the Clarendon County, S.C. schools suit which was the first of the desegregation cases to reach the Supreme Court as part of the Brown cases, try Richard Kluger's Simple Justice. It was a bestseller when it came out in '75 and is still regarded as the definitive history of the movement to end legal school segregation. It has an extensive exposition of the facts and background of Briggs. Any decent local library will have a copy, and it's still in print in paperback. ISBN 0394722558. Ellsworth (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:1632 series
I hope your recent post indicates an interest in getting more actively involved here again, although not at the expense of your professional work. I'm an admin here; if you'd like to discuss the issue more, you can drop me a note: I'm still orangemike at-sign gmail dot com. Really, though, the substantive discussion does need to take place on the articles' talk pages. (All the 1632 articles have a tendency to be edited by fans like myself, as is true of a lot of pop culture topics. That does not constitute a waiver of the social contract we agree to when we edit Wikipedia.) -- Orange Mike |  Talk  18:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Echoing what I said in December. -- Orange Mike |  Talk  18:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 7 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Keypad page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=594383341 your edit] caused a duplicate page number error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%0A%0A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fw%2Findex.php%3Fdiff%3D594383341%20Keypad%5D Ask for help])

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NPS.Gov
Template:NPS.Gov has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rboatright


text: User:J-Wiki

title: User:J-Wiki


text:
User talk:J-Wiki

Welcome Message
Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Moment of inertia images
Thanks for the images! I'd been meaning to make some of my own, but hadn't nearly gotten around to it. Did you make those yourself? And if so, is there any way you can label the dimensions? For instance, the cylinder is drawn on its end; saying "length" may not be totally unambiguous without a label on the picture; kinda like

^ | | L | | V

next to it. (See why I generally don't make my own drawings?) Thanks again for the images. Grendelkhan 13:54, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

I put together some MetaPost illustrations for the moment of inertia page; working on converting all of them, see note on my talk page. Grendelkhan 22:30, 2004 May 7 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Quantum teleportation diagram.PNG
Thanks for uploading File:Quantum teleportation diagram.PNG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Bell test correlations.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Bell test correlations.svg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Incompleteness of quantum physics
I noticed you are moving Incompleteness of quantum physics, has this been discussed with consensus?
 * <3 ♥ Solarra ♥  ♪ Talk ♪  ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀ 10:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The entire contents of the article have been incorporated into Hidden variable theory. Sorry, if users of these articles disagree with this consolidation, then it can easily be undone.J-Wiki (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hard problem of consciousness
Your edits have been thoughtful, so I don't want to dwell on quibbles. Tom Nagel's remark is correct: No one knows how a physical state can 'be' a mental (i.e., felt) state. That is in fact yet another way to state the "hard problem" itself!

But to say instead "No one knows how a physical state can be or yield a mental state" is not just to state the problem, but to take a position on it, namely, the hypothesis of interactionist dualism (or something along those lines).

 * My edit was intended to avoid having the article take a position, by adding the possibility of the dualist solution ("yield") to the possibility of a monist solution ("be"). This is in keeping with Chalmer's original statement of the "hard problem":

 * "It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does."

 * He uses the verb "to arise", which Merriam-Webster defines as "to begin to occur or to exist". Of course, the same word could be used in the introduction, but ot wouldn't be the best writing style.J-Wiki (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

But this is exactly what acknowledging that it is a "hard problem" is meant to avoid. Yes, no one has any idea how a physical state could 'be' a mental state, but that already covers the fact that no one has any idea how a physical state could cause a mental state either!

 * The inability to be something does not necessarily preclude the ability to cause something.J-Wiki (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Singling out that particular symptom of the problem and elevating it to the statement of the (hard) problem itself amounts to giving one particular hypothesis a privileged position among the many (vacuous) hypotheses that have been the symptoms of the (hard) problem itself.

By the same token one might have extended the statement of the problem to include all of the popular hypothetical (and vacuous) non-solutions: (1) the physical is identical with the mental (materialism, identity theory), (2) the physical causes the mental (parallelism), (3) the mental interacts with the physical (interactionism), (4) the physical replaces the mental (eliminativism), (5) there is no mental (physicalism), (6) there is only the mental (mentalism), (7) the mental is our only perspective on the physical (dual aspectism), (8) mental states and physical states are all just "functional" states (functionalism), etc. etc.

All these non-explanatory non-solutions are already implied by the hard problem itself. That P might (somehow) be the "cause" of M is already one of the many inchoate hypotheses opened up by admitting that we have no idea whatsoever as to how P could "be" M (or M could "be" P).

 * Yes, there are other theoretical possibilities, but Chalmers didn't consider them popular enough to mention. Therefore, the article, in summarizing the topic, shouldn't.

 * Also, the recognition that there is a "hard problem" of consciousness does not imply that the solution must be monist. It is intended to make clear that finding physical explanations of even all of the "easy problems" will not solve the "hard problem".J-Wiki (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

That's why I think it would have been more NpV to use one neutral copula as the verb-of-puzzlement ("to be") rather than a neutral one plus an arbitrary choice among the many problematic hypotheses on the market ("to yield" -- i.e., "to cause").

 * As explained above, I don't see the verb "to be" as neutral in this case.J-Wiki (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

From glancing at (but not reading) other Wp articles you have edited, a hypothesis occurs to me: might your own PoV be influenced by quantum hypotheses...?

 * Which PoV would that be?J-Wiki (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

As for me: "Hypotheses non fingo" --User:Harnad (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC) --User:Harnad (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC) --User:Harnad (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your comments.

 * Please see my replies interspersed above.

 * The essence of this discussion should be copied to the article's talk page, so that others can benefit from the discussion for the purpose of editing the article.
 * J-Wiki (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

 * As you request, I will copy this exchange to the talk page of Hard problem of consciousness. Not to extend this side-discussion too long I will just make two replies:

 * (1) The hard problem is a problem of explanation: "how" and "why" do organisms feel rather than just function (insentiently, like machines)? Dave Chalmers did not claim to invent the hard problem, just to name it and point out that it is hard to explain how and why organisms feel rather than just function. Scientific explanation is not normally a metaphysical matter. "Monism" vs. "Dualism" (i.e., is there one kind of "stuff" in the universe ["physical"] or two kinds of "stuff" ["physical" and "mental"]?) is a metaphysical distinction, which in turns implies that the hard problem is hard for metaphysical reasons. But that is only one of many possible reasons why the hard problem is hard. Metaphysical dualism should not be given a privileged status among the myriad conceivable solutions to the hard problem, and it certainly should not be part of the definition of the hard problem. I think it is a mistake -- and misleading to WP readers -- to make metaphysical conjectures part of the definition of the hard problem. It is clear that some internal states of organisms are unfelt states and other internal states are felt states. The copula "are" here is not a metaphysical "are." It takes no sides on how or why some internal states are felt. It just states that they are, and that explaining how or why this is the case is hard. The copula "is" is not a statement of the "identity theory" or any other mataphysical conjecture or scientific hypothesis. It is just the "is" we use in any subject/predicate statement.

 * (2) What PoV might someone interested in quantum mechanical puzzles unwittingly import into their view of the hard problem? Well, wave/particle 'duality," for a start...--User:Harnad (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

 * I'll respond here instead of on the talk page where I saw this discussion since my response is not related to editing Hard problem of consciousness. One problem with many philosophical discussions of "mental states" (including the discussion above) is that the timing of such "mental states" is poorly specified. Philosopher Robert Prentner, for example, recently argued that the hard problem needs to be reframed with finer temporal specification; he wrote: "The mereological analysis given here is a first step into the direction of an empirically adequate process theory of consciousness. It is necessary to make intelligible how conceptual dichotomies like "intrinsic/extrinsic" or apparent oxymora such as "mental causation" refer to dual aspects or perspectives within a larger process instead of referring to different "natures" or "substances." Process thought is of course not limited to the problem of consciousness. Yet, we believe that it could most usefully be applied in this still-contested field of investigation where science intermingles with speculative thought to resolve the "subject-predicate dogma" [Whitehead, Process and Reality, corrected ed., 49]. [...] The concept of temporality is needed to distinguish between process thought and mere structuralism, an issue of tantamount importance also for consciousness studies, where temporal relations on multiple scales will need to be addressed. This defines a field of inquiry, to which considerable efforts should be directed in the future." –"

 * (Notice, incidentally, how Prentner's mention of Whitehead's "subject-predicate dogma" relates to your statement above: the "is" we use in any subject/predicate statement.)
 * If you or know of any interesting recent discussions of the hard problem that address temporality on multiple scales as Prentner alluded to, I would be grateful if you could share relevant citations. Biogeographist (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know of recent, relevant writings on this question. I can only say that I find "dual-aspect" theory as unhelpful as the other 8 nonsolutions listed in paragraph 9 above (or many more that could have been mentioned). I don't know what Prentner means by "finer temporal resolution" (though I'm pretty sure that by "tantamount" he means "paramount"). My guess is that the "is" ambiguity ("is" as stating a proposition and "is" as making an identity claim) is not really a profound matter. There is always a problem with physical to mental or mental to physical predication because of the (unsolved) "hard problem." We do not know how (or why) feeling is generated. Dualists insist on reminding us that we don't even know whether feeling is (physically) generated, or somehow sui generis. Timing won't help.

(I assume that the hope is that if the physical (functional) state and the mental (felt) state don't occur simultaneously, this will somehow help sort things out: I think it won't. I did note once, in a Ben-Libet context (and Dan Dennett cites it in one of his books on consciousness) that it is impossible to time the exact instant of a mental event: it could precede, coincide with, or follow its physical correlate (and subjective report certainly cannot settle the matter!): there's no objective way to pinpoint the subjective event except very approximately, not the fine-tuning Prentner seems to want. Saul Sternberg thought it could be done statisticaly, with averaging, as with event-related potentials. But I think it wouldn't help either way. Whether feeling occurs before, during, or after a neural correlate, it does not help with the hard problem, which is a problem of causal explanation, not chronometry.) --User:Harnad (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the response. I'm familiar with Libet and some related discussions but all of that is quite old at this point. I suspect there is a role for chronometry in further elucidation of the hard problem but it will require, among other things, further experimental research (as always) and technological development. If "there's no objective way to pinpoint the subjective event" then what is the warrant for even speaking of a "felt state" in contrast to an "unfelt state" (as the lead of Hard problem of consciousness does) when a "state" can't even be pinpointed in phenomenal experience? (This is a question about the appropriateness of "state" as a common denominator between felt and unfelt, or subjective and objective, rather than about the hard problem in general. It's also a rhetorical question: I don't expect that there is a good response.) Biogeographist (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

First, "no objective way to pinpoint the subjective event except very approximately" is not the same as no way to pinpoint it at all.

Second, the limits of human timing accuracy for detecting felt states or events are pretty well known. I can say whether it felt as if my tooth-ache started a half-second earlier or later but not whether it started a millisecond earlier or later. So the temporal boundaries of felt instants are probably too coarse for pinning them to neural correlates (which can be much finer).

Of course one can always dream of new technology, but that would still only be based on more accurate timing of objective neural events (unless you are imagining either a drug or a form of brain stimulation that increases the limits of human timing accuracy for detecting felt states, which I think is unlikely, though not inconceivable).

But even if subjective detection could be made as accurate as objective (neural) detection, how can that more accurate chronometry help with causal explanation? As I said, the felt instant could precede, coincide with or follow its neural correlate, but none of the three options helps explain how or why (or even whether) neural events cause feelings.

The causal problem is not in the timing. It's in the functionality. Neural events can clearly (and unproblematically) cause motor as well as other physiological activity (including "information-processing"), all of which can be objectively timed and measured. No causal problem whatsoever there. Suppose some neural events turn out to slightly precede or even be exactly simultaneous with felt states (within the limits of measurement): How would that help explain how and why the felt states are felt? Even if the felt states systematically precede their neural correlates (within the limits of measurement), how does that help explain how and why felt states are felt?

That's why I think "temporality" is not going to help solve the hard problem. I think the real problem is not in the timing of either firings or feelings. The problem is that feeling seems to be causally superfluous for causing, hence explaining, our cognitive capacities -- once the "easy problems" (which are "only" about the causal mechanisms of behavior, cognitive capacity and physiology) have been solved.

Even if one imagines a scenario where the feeling precedes its neural correlate, and the neural correlate can also occur without the preceding feeling, but we can show that the neural correlate alone, without the preceding feeling, is incapable of generating some behavioral capacity (i.e., an easy problem), whereas when preceded by the feeling, it can. This sounds like the ultimate gift to the dualist: but what does it explain, causally? Nothing. It is just a just-so story, causally speaking. It leaves just as big a causal mystery as the scenario in which the neural correlate precedes or coincides with the feeling. None of this gives the slightest hint of a solution. Neither monism nor dualism solves the hard problem. It just soothes metaphysical angst, hermeneutically.

Now there could be a form of dualism that does give a causal explanation, hence a solution to the hard problem: If, in addition to the four fundamental forces of nature (gravitation, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak atomic forces) there were a fifth force which corresponded to feeling (or willing), then we would be no more entitled to ask "how and why does this fifth force pull or push" than we are to ask how and why do the other four fundamental forces pull or push. They are simply fundamental forces of nature, as described by the fundamental laws of nature, and as supported by the empirical evidence. -- But the latter is exactly what feeling as a fifth force lacks. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever of a fifth fundemental force, whereas there is no end of observable, measurable evidence of the other four.

So even on the last hypothetical scenario (feeling precedes neural correlate and some behavioral capacity cannot be generated by the neural correlate alone when it is not preceded by the feeling), the "causal power" of feeling would remain a mystery: a hard problem, unsolved. The only thing I can say in favor of this fantasy scenario (which I don't believe) is that if it did turn out to be true, it would mean that the "easy problems" cannot all be solved without the (inexplicable) help of feeling, and hence that some easy problems turn out to be hard! --User:Harnad (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Thanks again for the response. It's very interesting to read how you think. You went in a direction I wouldn't have anticipated: I'm not sure where your sudden emphasis on "causal explanation" in your comment above comes from. (Perhaps it came from Prentner's article, but I think he brings up causal explanation just to point toward the alternative of mereological explanation.) The word "causal" doesn't appear in the Hard problem of consciousness article, and "not all scientific explanations work by describing causal connections between events or the world's overall causal structure" (from: ). I don't see why responses to the hard problem aimed at explaining the relationship between phenomenal experience and objective data, or at explaining the very nature of the phenomenal, would require a causal explanation. So I don't think that "how can that more accurate chronometry help with causal explanation?" is the right question, but I'll take the question with the word "causal" omitted. And I'll admit that I don't have a good answer, but I'll keep thinking about it. I can say that I often don't know very well exactly what it is that I am feeling, and I'm familiar enough with the psychotherapy research literature to know that I'm not alone—this is common even among relatively normal people (which includes me, of course), as philosopher Eric Schwitzgebel has also emphasized (e.g., ). So that adds another explanatory target for the hard problem: not just why and how people (OK, sentient beings) feel, but also why and how they don't know what they feel. And I suspect there is a role to play for a better understanding of "temporal relations" (Prentner) and of many other things. I'll happily concede that it may not help with causal explanation because, as I said, I don't see how causal explanation is required. Biogeographist (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Dave Chalmers may not have written about explanation or causal explanation in relation to the hard problem, but I have. ;>) And I don't think the hard problem has much to do with our subjective perplexities about what it is that we're feeling: A coherent causal explanation of how and why tissue-damage -- besides generating the "easy" adaptive responses (limb-withdrawal, escape, avoidance, learning, memory) -- also generates "ouch" would be sufficient to solve the hard problem (without any further existential or phenomenological introspection on the meaning or quality of "ouch"). Best wishes, --User:Harnad (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Thanks again. I think any unclarity and variability of phenomenal experience is relevant to any response to the hard problem; the fact that the experience of "ouch" can be significantly altered (or even prevented) in some people by hypnosis, for example, which has nothing to do with the damaged tissue, is certainly relevant. And pain is only one kind of phenomenal experience, so a causal explanation of pain experience wouldn't "solve" the hard problem in general. Biogeographist (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:J-Wiki


text: User:Shamir~enwiki

title: User:Shamir~enwiki


text:
User talk:Shamir~enwiki

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

question for you
Hi there Did you asked about recanati family? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.34.5 (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Shamir. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Shamir~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Shamir~enwiki


text:
User talk:Kaczor~enwiki

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Kaczor. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Kaczor~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 01:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kaczor~enwiki