User talk:Kosebamse/Archive2

Maps

Hi. Regarding your question about a source of maps... well, the one's I'm slowly putting up for all the countries are just made from a single world map I created myself (based on data and coordinates from various smaller maps I found, but don't still have). The map itself is about 1400 x 600 pixels. I have it in either Windows bitmap format or GIF format, but I could make it into something else (like a PNG) if that's more convenient. I also have close-up maps of Europe and the Caribbean (both roughly 400 x 500 pixels), and will possibly make one of the Pacific. If you think these would be useful to someone, where should I put them? - Vardion 07:36, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well I think if you'd just go on with the small location maps for countries that would already be great :-) I really don't know much about maps (or even images in general), it's just that I noted that many maps on Wikipedia are less than informative. (There's Wikipedia:Image_markup and Wikipedia:Image_use_policy for a start). Maps of continents could perhaps go to the respective articles. I am not sure where to leave the world map but if it's not too large perhaps you could put it somewhere under your user page so it can be worked on by others as well? Thanks, Kosebamse 07:55, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for taking so long to reply to this - I got confused somewhere. I've just put my maps for the world, Europe, the Caribbean, and the Persian Gulf on my user page - they can be used for whatever people want. Is that the sort of think you think would be useful? - Vardion 08:13, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Vardion, this looks very nice - although I am not sure that I will have use for it these maps are certainly worth using. Perhaps you should announce them somewhere. Thanks and best wishes, Kosebamse 08:21, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Nomination

Thanks a lot for the admin nomination Kosebamse, I've accepted it! :-)

Sorry it took so long to reply, but i've been taking a break for the past month preparing for exams.

I will take a look at your pages, I'll probably be doing rather random articles for a while, til I get back into the swing of things.

Thanks again! Tristan. Tristanb 01:41, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Congratulations for your exam (I hope), and for Wikipedia Admin (certainly), and welcome back. Kosebamse 06:46, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Baseball

Thanks very much for taking on the task of revising the baseball page. It has bothered me for a long time. I am glad that you found my summary of the rules useful, and gratified that you thought it was a better explanation than the one that was in Wikipedia. I wish I had time to help you with this, but I'm finishing up a book. If the merge is still in progress when I'm done with the book, I may be able to contribute.

What you have done so far looks good to me.

Thanks again. Dominus

Thanks for the compliments, I'll try to do some more work on the article, but it would certainly need some expert's review at a later time - perhaps you would like to take a look. See you later - Kosebamse 19:35, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to echo Dominus' comments. Through your efforts, that whole cluster of articles is coming together nicely. - Jim Redmond 22:51, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Another Wik/Nico edit war

Wik and Nico are having an edit war over Wroclaw, over which alternate language Wiki's the article should link to, and whether or not to mention the Czech name for the city. As someone born and raised in the U.S.A., I really don't understand what the fuss is about. -- Khym Chanur 00:32, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, perhaps I can try to do something. Nobody really understands what the fuss is about, but it's doing great damage to Wikipedia in terms of bad PR and lost worktime. This has been going on for over a month now, and I believe many Wikipedians are tired and fed up with babysittig these two guys. Kosebamse 06:27, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thank you

Just a brief note to say thank you for answering my Village Pump sub-pages question so quickly - Gandalf61 12:40, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

'twas a pleasure. Have fun and go on with the good work. Kosebamse 18:08, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Görlitz

Hello Kosebamse. I see, that you are now trying to tame the lions (speaking about Silesia and so on) ;-) Good luck. Would you please consider my text proposal on Talk:Görlitz? After all I don't want to continue arbitration in articles about Poland, but articles about German towns and regions are (at least partially) in some way my baby, and I don't want to see these edit wars taking possession of regions west of the Polish border. The worst mistake of mine was probably to believe, that a user like Nico could be educated to NPOV editing. Hopefully this madness can be stopped. If not, I would strongly advise to bring this up on the mailing list again to the knowledge of Jimbo Wales. Good luck again, and take care! -- Baldhur 17:45, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC) (formerly known as Cordyph)

I try to be very relaxed about this. It's a great pity that these two guys are so persistent in their hatred, but so it goes. I will be extremely cautious with everything related to the actual content of the pages under discussion lest they defame me as being not impartial. Unfortunately, this may mean that I can do very little to NPOV anything. I will however be persistent in trying to educate them (not that I have much hope for the immediate future, but, as The Police once mentioned, Truth Hits Everybody). You and Ruhrjung have exhausted yourselves with these childish wars and I don't dare suggest that either of you get involved again, but perhaps Ed could help again, or do you have any other suggestions? Kosebamse 18:08, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't know any solution but making an appeal to Jimbo. Tell him again about the situation, that one page after another has to be perpetually protected. These guys will eventually force us to leave all pages about Poland protected, and that would be a sad solution. The best would be a strong warning to both by a person of authority.

My actual reason for dropping you this message was my version of the Görlitz article. You find it on Talk:Görlitz. Perhaps we might give it a chance. It is completely different from the former version, and I explained on the talk page, why it should be written this way. -- Baldhur 22:18, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have read it and think that it is much better than the other one. Problem is, if I put it in place of the current one, Wik and Nico will start shouting "Censorship" "Vandalism" "Cabal" "Un-Wiki" "Nationalist" "No, you're the nationalist" "Abuse of sysop privileges" all over the place and not stop befor they are either banned or something similarly drastic happens. And I am afraid it would not be much different if somebody else edited the article. I think it might be an idea to proclaim somewhere that we intend to rewrite the article completely with your version as the basis, then explicitly invite everybody who has been involved recently, and see whether a version can be agreed on. As the person who protected the page, I personally would prefer to remain impartial and kind of overlook the process, so it would be (partially) my responsibility to make a sugestion as to when the protection can be lifted. The situation is very unfortunate but perhaps not hopeless, and my optimism is not exhausted yet. However, if such a procedure fails and it becomes obvious that our two misguided friends are and remain unable to cooperate, appealing to Jimbo would be the next step. What do you think? Kosebamse 23:35, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. But I fear, neither Wik nor Nico will comment on the text proposal. In my view these two guys are not interested in discussing a neutral article version, but only in endless reversion wars and insults. This has always been the same: As long as the article was protected and sysops called for discussion on the talk page, there was silence. As soon as the page was unprotected, they started again their game of reverting and re-reverting. Every other person intervening in this stage was accused of taking sides, being a vandal and so on. I wonder, how long we will bear with these guys, who were not yet able to understand how to work in a cooperative project. But if you have not lost your optimism, I wish you good luck in settling a compromise. -- Baldhur 07:35, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'll give it one more try. At least three experienced and responsible Wikipedians have given up on taming these two when they fought over Silesia. If this new effort fails, I see no other solution but ban them. You might be aware of the case of User:H.J., who by the way fought over German-Polish matters as well. She was ultimately banned because of "inability or refusal to work co-operatively to resolve differences". It looks like those two guys will face a similar fate if they don't reform their ways. But let's give them a last chance. Kosebamse 13:04, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Proof of dolphin intelligence

Proof of cavitation: File:Adolpho.png
-- Someone else 06:48, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Laughing my toenails off...Kosebamse 06:52, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What?

When did I create a page that was just a collection of unfounded accusations? - Arthur George Carrick

Around the 9th or 10th November, if I recall correctly, it was mentioned on Vfd and quickly deleted. I'll look it up, and if it was an error, please accept my apologies. Kosebamse 20:32, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That page was called Engime's Theory of Pure Absurdity, it was created by you 02:32, 9 Nov 2003 and fast-track deleted soon after (Excerpt from deletion log: 21:04, Nov 9, 2003 Daniel Quinlan deleted "Engime's Theory of Pure Absurdity" (about deletionism/inclusionism, issue is already discussed in meta space, repeated trolling by same user)).

Its content was: Engime's theory of pure absurdity is the theory that everything, with the possible exception of the theory of pure absurdity, through logic, can be reduced to something totally absurd. Examples 1. Probability There are infinite possible futures that can occur. since any fraction of infinite is infinite, the probability of each future is infinite. All things are equally likely. 2. Inclusionists/Deletionists The inclusionists, through their desire to have articles on everything, will promote the deletionists (as well as themselves) by including articles on them. The deletionists, on the other hand, will delete articles on both groups, as they would not contain real-life, useful information, thus causing a neverending cycle.

While my memory was not quite accurate as to the content, its intent is obviously unneccessary provocation and abuse of Wikipedia's main namespace, and as I said on your talk page, the attitude behind it will not gain you much popularity here. Kosebamse 20:45, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi, how come the user name?

Since you're not Scandinavian(?), how come your Wikipedia user name? Just wondering :-). But I also have a serious question: do you or any other sysop know whether there are any current plans of reviving the contribution statistics page(s)? Knowing about one's monthly contribution level relative to others could be used as an (admittedly one-dimensional) indicator of when to consider applying for adminship.

BTW, nice to see that someone 'cares about' the Greifswalder Oie; I got interested in it after reading about Peenemünde. In case you know the German language well, could you affirm or deny that "Oie" is another (archaic?) word for "Insel"? I couldn't find anything on this word in my dictionaries, so I started wondering a little about it... Wernher 20:58, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm indeed not Scandinavian, just a German with touristic, amourous and private interests in the area ;) . I don't know what's going on with the statistics, but given the recent hardware trouble I guess that people just did not care or have the time. And with regard to the Oie, I am rather sure that it is indee the same as Ö, Eiland (German), --oog (Frisian), -ay (Norse placenames in Scotland) etc, will try to find some more... Have fun and don't let the trolls spoil the game, Cheers, Kosebamse 21:07, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification -- I guess I should have guessed about the user name and amorous Scandinavian interests... :-) -- and thanks for your help with my Oie word info search. Now I'll even be able to use it in the German version of my real name, which ends with a Norwegian word for island. I was suspecting something along the lines you note above, etymology-wise, but with nothing more to go on than my linguistic gut feel I couldn't be sure... --Wernher 05:23, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Regarding Oie, Kluge's "Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache" has nothing under Eiland, Ache, and Au, all more or less synonyma meaning water (related to aqua) or island, but I found this. Looks not overly well-referenced, so I'll try to find some more. See you later, Kosebamse 21:51, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks in advance, I find this stuff most interesting, as you see from my paragraph above. My own search will consist of combing the antiquariats of Oslo to root out old etymological dictionaries in German, Norwegian/Danish etc; in my experience the old ones are at least as good for finding archaic meanings of words as the newer ones (one would think that modern works took better advantage of previous research, including and/or modifying it... oh, well).

BTW, I noted the Kruzenshtern link on your to-do list -- I take it you think of the man as well as the very beautiful ship? I had the pleasure of a nice little voyage on Kruzenshtern from Trondheim to Bergen in the summer of 1997 (a sail in company stage of the Cutty Sark Tall Ships Race), and totally fell in love with the ship. Will most certainly try and get another trip with it later, hopefully to some ports in Europe, if the ship is still in operation some years from now. --Wernher 05:23, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Wernher, sorry, did not see your answer earlier - I thought of making articles about some large sailing ships (there's a link to a list on Cutty Sark Tall Ships' Race but haven't gotten so far. If you're interested, would be great, and I would start from said link. And Krusenstern himself (I think that's what he spelled his name, being of Baltic-German origin) already has an article, which could be much expanded - so much work to do... Cheers, Kosebamse

Primary sources

You may want to add your voice to: Wikipedia talk:Don't include copies of primary sources --mav 07:18, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the advice. Kosebamse 07:45, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Silesian wars

Apparently there is now something like a consensus about Silesia and Görlitz. I never thought, that this would be possible. Congratulations for your mediation! -- Baldhur 07:30, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, let's see if the compromises will be generally accepted, that would be very pleasing. And by the way, it's good that you didn't resign over Wikipedia, after all it's more about it than edit wars. Best, Kosebamse 07:45, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

And I think, I have to withdraw my words concerning Nico. Whenever I am convinced, that he is nothing but a troll, he surprises me again. Hopefully Wik will be able to surprise me as well. -- Baldhur 08:07, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for chatting to Wik and for helping to resolve certain related problems. I hope you've put your name to Jimbo as a mediator - you have a talent for it. Martin 20:22, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Seconded. It was a really great job, done with an incredible amount of superhuman patience. It is a pity that you had to deal with the only person on Wikipedia, who is not open to mediation at all. But after all, the articles in question are still free of reversion wars. -- Baldhur 20:36, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments - it's been an interesting experience to do this, however I am afraid that my activities on Silesia weren't much of a success, as the peace did not last long. I am rather sure it is to do with Wik's stubborn refusal to get involved into talk with people he doesn't like - otherwise the dispute might have resulted in a better compromise. Anyway, one positive result of all this is that it has helped me understand Wikipedia better, especially about how NPOV works, how some people sabotage Wikipedia because of their twisted understanding of communication, and to what degree we can tolerate the enemies of tolerance. There's a lot more thinking to be done, though. And at least Görlitz seems to enjoy some peace, so maybe it wasn't all in vain. Kosebamse 12:59, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This morning I wrote a message to the mailing list describing what happened and why I consider this intolerable (for example Caius2ga calling his opponent Nazis). However, when I complained about this kind of behaviour before, there has been no reaction and few interest, so I don't have too much hope, that anything will be changed. Probably we have to accept, that there are sections within Wikipedia, where normal editors should not go and which are reserved for partisans and reversion warriors. Sad enough. -- Baldhur 13:16, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well I guess the problem is really more serious than it looks. It's not only that there is a seemingly eternal war about a few topics here (Israel/Palestine, Poland/Germany), it's a decline in cultural values, and a reluctance to take action against Wikipedia's enemies. I thinks that Wik is dangerous: he's not the reckless bully that I thought him to be - after my extended conversation with him I am beginning to be convinced that he is a smart, straussianist reckless bully with an agenda. He seems determined to dominate Wikipedia and all its "lamers" into submission; he thinks we need a strong hand (=his) and a zero tolerance policy against people he does not like ("vandals and trolls"); he dreams of rewriting history and policy to become unilateralist Wik-ian; and he is very determined. All in all, a sort of Wiki-Paul Wolfowitz (which he might even read as a compliment). But smart as may be, he's handicapped by his inability to understand Wikipedia's fundamentals; the ultra-hawkish attitude is his weak spot. Methinks we must find out how to use it against him. Or we might wait until he gets tired. Kosebamse 15:27, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps you want to join the discussion on the wikien mailing list. Well, up to now it is not really a discussion. The only reaction was Ed Poor writing: "Just tell Caius2ga that he should not do it again." I value Ed as a great and helpful Wikipedian, but this sort of reply totally misses the point. I would appreciate, if every user experiencing these difficulties could make a wakeup call on the mailing list. -- Baldhur 15:35, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Dolphin brain

Please take a look at Dolphin brain. Once again, it's getting out of hand. orthogonal 18:44, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Orthogonal, I am sorry, but it looks like I won't have the time right now; perhaps you could ask mav for advice, he knows biology and the Wikipedian-biologists, so he could probably help. Kosebamse 19:32, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Cubic Truth censored on Wikipedia

Hi Kosebamse, I noticed that you recently wrote a typical erroneous Academian diatribe, claiming that Time Cube lacks substance. I suggest that you access the article Gene Ray, click the link "Radio Interviews with Gene Ray", and go to the forum on that site. You will discover a most ample quantity of pro-Cubic evidence. But I guess this will just make you push more aggressively for the deletion of all articles pertaining to Time Cube, because you can't allow the Cubic Truth to become known, can you?!

Hi 211.28.76.91 (and other adresses from the 211.28 range), it has not escaped my attention that you like to repeat your claims about the "Cubic Truth" in several places on Wikipedia. As you may have noticed, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such focuses exclusively on factual, verifiable information. This means that mere proclamations, be they presented on the Internet, on radio or elsewhere, do not qualify as source of information. If there were at the very least a comprehensible definition or testable hypothesis about the "Cubic Truth", or any evidence for the existence of such a phenomenon, we Wikipedians would be happy to scrutinize and describe it. As long as there are only proclamations, we will restrict ourselves to reporting that such proclamations exist. You might wish to read scientific method and theory to learn more about scientific evidence and how it is obtained. Respectfully, Kosebamse 12:44, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You treat me as an ignoramus in order to discredit the Cubic Truth, and while this may succeed in brainwashing dummies for now, the fact is that at this very moment, information about Time Cube is propagating over the Internet. As this information becomes known to people, the abominable anti-Nature evil of Academian pedants such as yourself is exposed. Your support of the censorship by deletion of the article Gene Ray indicts you as a cowardly Academian fraud. You must seek Time Cube.

Silesia vote

Hi, I noticed you were involved in some of the discussion some weeks ago about Silesia. I've proposed a vote at Talk:Silesia about some of the disputed issues in an attempt to resolve the issue. I'd appreciate your comments. Thanks. john 21:59, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, I'll have a look. But please don't expect too much - firstly, I promised to remain neutral in Silesian matters and although I have not been active there for a while, I still believe it might be best if I stayed out of factual disputes, and secondly, I won't be able to spend much time on Wikipedia for a while - but I'll help if I can. Kosebamse 15:37, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Kosebamse. I would appreciate your involvement. I have reentered the discussion (this time as participant and not as mediator) and I would feel more comfortable, if as many reasonable people as possible would be around. This might help improving the style of discussion. If the language becomes abusive again, a great number of calls to order may cause something good. Probably you are right: This is not a question of how to write an article about Silesia, this is a question of how to improve communications and eliminate hatred. I hope, that I do not sound too naive, but I hope, that it is a solvable task. -- Baldhur 17:02, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Lir's comment on his renaming Terms for anatomical location

The page doesn't include any information on botanical terms; it is inappropriate to refer to it as "anatomical" when it only covers zootomical terms. Lirath Q. Pynnor

hi

hi! I dont know you, but your Bacon quote made me to ask you whether you can or you are willing to help me write more info in Wikipedia about Rosicrucianism and Esotericism in general. I am seeking people who could help me to organize and present these subjects to Wikipedia's reader in a NPOV and encyclopedic way, including info lackin from other encyclopedias, but we should work as an organized team (preferably the team members should be esotericists or students of esotericism with practical experience and with an active interest in the spiritualization of humanity). The proposed organization page is at User:Optim/Spirituality Portal and User_talk:Optim/Spirituality Portal. The team I have in mind will work in a very organized and scheduled way to improve the content of pages such as Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis, List of Rosicrucians, FUDOSI, FUDOFSI, Mysticism, Freemasonry and the like. The organized activity will take place after February and will probably require IRC and/or email communication. If however you know nothing about these subjects or feel that you received this message in error, just ignore my message or delete it if you like. Thank you, with Best Wishes for Peace Profound, .^.. Optim 20:00, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC) .^..

Hi Optim and thanks for the invitation. I am afraid I can't help you with any degree of expertise - I found the Bacon quote by chance and thought it would make a nice motto for an encyclopedist. And moreover, I currently don't have much time left for wikipediing, so I am afraid there won't be much help from me. Good luck with your project, Kosebamse 20:11, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for answering ;) with best wishes, Optim 20:32, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)