User talk:Wikiscient/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  ... (up to 100)

Welcome!

Hello, Wikiscient, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Canderson7 ^(talk) 15:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem and Solution

{{helpme}} QUESTION: Hi, I seem to be having a problem. My question, then, is this: can I simply have an admin or someone make it go away? Thanks! --Wikiscient

How odd. In any case, the easiest way to find an admin to do this for you is a message at WP:AN. Algebraist 17:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done --slakr^\ talk / 17:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well that seems to have done the trick!

Thank you very much! --Wikiscient (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Changes to intelligence cycle management

It would be helpful, especially when an article is part of a set of articles, to discuss proposed deletions or cleanup on the talk page before taking immediate action. Alternatively, since the intelligence series is under the Intelligence Task Force of the Military History Project, there is another place to discuss concerns.

I recognize that "be bold" is a Wikipedia concept, but there are times when collaboration and consensus can pay results as well.

Some latitude is often given to the introduction of an article, with respect to sourcing general statements, when the topics involved are discussed in detail later in the article.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to:

04:10, February 26, 2008 Hcberkowitz (Talk | contribs) (63,724 bytes) (I'm trying not to get into an edit war here; please discuss concerns. Minor: "In one documented case" makes "for example" redundant -- and there were multiple such cases)

1) This is a good article overall.

2) The introduction, though, was very poorly phrased. I think I have improved that phrasing with my edits so far.

3) Yes, the specific "undo" you did is in this case very minor and not worth an "edit war." Still, I stand by my original wording. "In one documented case" does itself serve as a sort of "narrative bridge" from the general to the more specific, it's true, but the "for example" is still necessary, stylistically, to reinforce that transition and to relate this sentence to what has preceded it (ie, that this is a specific example of how intelligence can serve the national interest). Otherwise, without both phrases, the transition is jarring and abrupt. There should not be any reason to disagree, especially as it is, again, a very minor point.

4) I think the phrase "(and sensors managed by intelligence specialists)" is redundant an unnecessary and would recommend its deletion.

5) What were the other "multiple such cases" that resulted from my attempts to improve the writing in question? I'll be happy to clarify any other issues you may have...

--Wikiscient (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain some of my concerns. I have yet to hear what you found wrong with the introduction other than "poorly phrased". I don't agree with you about the "In one documented case" matter, but it is too small to worry about. I stand by my original wording, which did not get into the nuances of whether it was one case or more cases, which I don't think is necessary in an introduction to a much more general article. I do not believe either the "in one documented case" or "for example" improves the original wording, but I'm not a member of the grammar police.

My greater concern was alleviated when you did not undo my changes regarding the perversion of intelligence, which is, I believe, a key image that helps set the mindset for the closely following section on failures. There is, incidentally, an extensive literature on intelligence failures, with some brief sourcing in this introductory article, but other failures being the topic of entire general articles (e.g., cognitive traps in intelligence analysis), playing a major part in other articles (e.g., Battle of Pearl Harbor), and, of course, books such as Wohlstetter's.

Also, I appreciate not reverting the Sun Tzu and Richelson examples. I was not sure why you originally commented them out; I think they are useful examples.

In the case of near-accident nuclear war, incidents have been reported by both the US and fUSSR. From memory, around 6-8 incidents have been described. The case where BMEWS announced what appeared to be a large Soviet attack, but was in fact a phenomenon resulting from the radar not having been tested against a particular phase of the moon, caused an immediate war alert within the NORAD Combat Operations Center. The on-duty watch officer, however, knew that Khruschev was at the UN, and, from national intelligence sources, had no reason to believe the Soviets had sufficient internal turmoil to attack the US and sacrifice him. By the time the BMEWS data became seriously anomalous, predicting more launches than the Soviets conceivably had (that itself being STINFO and order of battle intellgence), and refusing to predict impact points, that would have been uncomfortably close to when alert bombers should have been in minimum interval takeoff, and, IIRC, awfully close to when ICBMs should be launched.

The officers that made the holdback decisions sometimes held positions that blurred operations and intelligence. That sort of blurring, for example, is why I made the qualification of sensors that may or may not be operated by intelligence personnel, such as early warning radars under NORAD control. Some sensors are considered organic to operational organizations. There can also be a blurring, for example, between organizations that do not necessarily think of tactical scouting units as intelligence, reserving the latter term for analysts and staff. The confusion over such awkward acronyms as C4ISTAR illustrates the blurring.

The subject of near-accidental, and the hypothetical accidental, nuclear war does not need to be detailed in the introduction to a series of articles; there could well be an article on the declassified cases available, and there are several books and monographs on the subject.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

-I have yet to hear what you found wrong with the introduction other than "poorly phrased".

That's all at this point. The content itself, as it stands now, is ok.

-I'm not a member of the grammar police.

I am. I also care about spelling, style, clarity, relevance, and all the other issues addressed at WP:MoS.

Let me rephrase that as "style police".

-In the case of near-accident nuclear war, incidents have been reported by both the US and fUSSR. From memory, around 6-8 incidents have been described.

I assumed the citation was for only one of those. (The one that stands out in my own mind -- and I don't recall the source at the moment, I think a New Yorker article -- was when a Soviet duty-officer watching over a relatively new satellite-based early-warning system got multiple launch alarms and took the personal responsibility of not sending it up the chain of command until after it would have been too late to respond anyway -- it turned out to have been sunlight reflected off of clouds, and they had to recalibrate the system to deal with that -- I forget what happened to the duty-officer, but he most likely ended up spending some time in Siberia after that!)

-the Sun Tzu and Richelson examples

Those are fine, now that they're referenced. They could be better incorporated into the rest of the introduction, probably, but they're fine as they are.

A little confused -- they were sourced before.

-nuclear war does not need to be detailed in the introduction

I would not complain if the whole "example" were deleted.

I would, and let me explain the reasoning, which, to some extent, was discussed among several people when creating the series on intelligence. Prior to starting on what was called an "overarching" article to give structure (I regret I don't remember who came up with the term, which wasn't mine. Might have been ajr or AzureCitizen), there were, and still are a few slithering around, lots of articles that seemed primarily sourced on James Bond.

If I were writing this article for a class, or perhaps in an intelligence journal where I would expect a longer attention span, I would agree completely with you. Wikipedia has an assortment of conflicts, one of which being a belief that a nonspecialist can get a general idea of why a subject is important, and the basics of how it works. Of course, this doesn't get very far when the article involves a subject that can't even be discussed without a good deal of mathematical or scientific background. I have taken a break from editing network engineering and computer science, because I got very tired of people insisting on oversimplifications that were outright wrong.

Nevertheless, there seems to be a delicate balance point, especially when there is an introductory article, between being precise, and being attention-grabbing to a nonspecialist. Sometimes, it seems to work to have just the lead be somewhat more journalistic that would be ideal in a classic encylopedia. I think you'll find that lead is different than the style I tend to use in the body, or in a more in-depth article. That, in any case, is the reason I wrote it the way I did, and I offer it as something I found I had to learn through experience.

If you think diplomacy may be needed here, you'll just love something like a CIA-specific article and its politics, even if the matter in question might have done by Army Intelligence before the CIA was even formed. :-(

-There is ... an extensive literature on intelligence failures ... other failures being the topic of entire general articles

Yes, and I'm not sure this is the best place to get into such detail about it here. Certainly, that section of the article ought to come after (and as a sub-section of) what this article is actually about -- ie. intelligence tasking and management. I mean, it just seems sort of awkward to me to talk about how that fails before talking about what it is. I'd move the failure section to the end, or even better put it in its own article within the hierarchy-of-intelligence-articles and just reference it here...

Again, consider the general reader. Logically, you are correct. In practice, the consequences of error, I believe, need to be in the introduction to keep the general reader reading.

Despite my user name, I am still a wikipedia-newbie -- I admit it. But I do have a lot of related experience. And this subject does interest me, so I may well join the project itself. It certainly seems to be something that you have yourself been significantly contributing to, so I hope we will not have to be working at cross-purposes over such minor points in the future. I'm just trying to help out for the greater good -- I don't mean to be stepping on your toes in the process!!

Peace,

--Wikiscient (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A good evening (or as appropriate to your time zone) Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

---

—Wikiscient— 19:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Marriage has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Will ^(talk) 23:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

– False positive...?    —Wikiscient— (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic theology

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, but I had to revert your edits to the Roman Catholic theology article because they violated Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. There were also numerous spelling and grammatical errors. --Wikiscient (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry sir, I meant not to be POW, I apologize, but I still belive i actually wrote the fact, although this fact is actually POW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.138.10 (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. "Sorry I ask, but could you modify and say what i mean to say on NPOW way:))? pls" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.138.10 (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC):

Okay, sure. I'll give it some thought, and try to help out with that if I can. I will leave you another message when I've done what I can, and then you can check that over to make sure it is 1) valid and 2) what you were trying to say -- how's that? Okay?

--Wikiscient (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, you know what I meant, and Im shure you will write that on npow way, problem with me was that I wrote fact on pow way, there i missed, thanx for coop, I agree with what you write in fwd

I just wanted to say that Im not Catholic, and I guess you are, I thought that its ok to speak in thounges in Catholicism. I guess you're catholic who oppose that practice or?

For all intents and purposes, I'm just your standard-issue Wikipedia editor....

I should be getting to work on Roman Catholic theology soon, so stay tuned...

--Wikiscient (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here is the net difference after my most recent edits compared to the version that existed right before you started editing this article today:

Roman Catholic theology (diff)

Note that I deleted the "Conservative and secular Catholics" and "Church attendance" because, while interesting, they do not belong in an article about Catholic theology.

If you really want to find a place for those sections, I suggest first putting them on the talk page for comment, and perhaps starting a new page on "Practice of Catholicism" or something like that...

Hope this helped, let me know if you have any further questions, concerns, or issues -- and, anyway, have a nice day, too!

--Wikiscient (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Wikiscient! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Ale_Jrb^talk 22:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

C00L !

—Wikiscient— 04:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

AWB

Hello Wikiscient! You've been approved for AWB. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

C00L !

—Wikiscient— 04:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No joking around

(NOTE: JUST PLAYING WITH TEMPLATES, ETC.)

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, we, a Committee of the Concerned, acting in a formal capacity as such, have recently been made aware that one of your user subpages, User:Wikiscient/Sandbox, contains, or has in the past contained, material which is not funny. It is our hope and belief that having now brought this matter to your attention, nothing like it will ever happen again.
Thank you very much, and please have a very funny day.
Signed,
Χ

OK – sry! — I had no idea!

Wikiscient— 20:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

---

hi

you have a message.see your userpage I've vandalised

Well aren't you clever!

Thank you for contributing.

Sincerely,

—Wikiscient— 09:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And soon you shall be banned. Thanks for alerting us to your presence. I reported you to AiV awhile back.. Goodbye.— Dædαlus T@lk\^{→(quick link)} 07:43, 14 March 2008 09:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

!!? Excuse me !!?

—Wikiscient— 09:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Calm down buddy, I'm sorry, I should have worded my message better. I was referring to the vandal who vandalized your userpage, several times. Me and.. some other user reverted him several times. I'm on your side.— Dædαlus T@lk\^{→(quick link)} 07:43, 14 March 2008 09:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Well, okay, that's cool! (Lol...!)

—Wikiscient— 09:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If I could smile back, I would, but, alas, no dragon emoicon exists to my knowlege, except my small text one: (n(^^)n) — Dædαlus T@lk\^{→(quick link)} 07:43, 14 March 2008 09:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

wp:aiav

Instead of battling with users like user:59.96.207.217, report them to wp:aiav so they can be banned! Good luck with editing, Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

greetings

Cool name, cool user boxes too :) --Procrastinating@^talk2me 01:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

Please see WP:MOS#National varieties of English please check if the spellings are correct in British English before assuming that there is a spelling mistake. "counsellor" is Be. Did you not see my comment in the history of the article "OED spells it sceptic first and as an alternative skeptic" so in this case there is no reason to think that sceptic is a spelling mistake. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. Please see my response here.

--—Wikiscient— 23:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Fall Out Boy

Do you like Fall Out Boy? Hannah Montana94 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannah Montana94 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Column

How do you make a column like the one on your user page? Hannah Montana94 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannah Montana94 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean the table of "userboxes," right?

The article Wikipedia:Userboxes has a lot of information about how to customize them, and also links to a lot of pre-existing templates for them.

Basically, all you need to do is put something like this in your user page:

<!-- The first line starts the "column": -->

{{userboxtop| toptext = About Hannah Montana94:| bordercolor = darkblue| backgroundcolor = lightgrey| textcolor = black}}

<!-- This is just a standard template: -->

{{User WPUH/WikiEdit-1}}

<!-- Here's another useful template: -->

{{User oops}}

<!-- Here's basically the same thing, "customized": -->

{{Userbox |border-c=#fff |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#DFF |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:Face-angel.svg|40px]] |info=This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, '''please [[User talk:Hannah Montana94|let them know]].'''}}

<!-- Or another way to do it: -->

<div style="float: left; border:#fff 1px; margin: 0px;">

{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: #DFF;"

| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: white; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|12}}}}}}pt" | '''[[Image:Face-angel.svg|40px]]'''

| style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em" | This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, '''please [[User talk:Hannah Montana94|let them know]].'''

|}</div>

<!-- This line ends the "column": -->

{{userboxbottom}}

Which will then look something like this:

About Hannah Montana94:

wiki-1This user is a beginning Wikipedia editor.

This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know.

This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know.

This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know.

Hope this helps, welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing!

—Wikiscient— 14:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Queen of Heaven

Hello- I see you do some patrolling of Queen of Heaven and thought you might be interested in a recent change there. I don't have a lot of stake in the article, but I noticed that on May 8, an anonymous editor had moved all or most of the historical info on the term around so that the Christian use is discussed first. I have the impression that the material had been chronological (old to new) before that. I haven't had time to read the versions, and this could well be an improvement, but I sensed some POV in a May 9 post on the article's talk page by a user called Xandar regarding the edit. Hence this FYI. -Eric ^talk 18:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up -- looks okay to me, though! --—Wikiscient— 03:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

So, as you probably guessed, I finally had a chance to read over the article, and it seemed to me to stray a good bit outside the neutrality lines. Hope I picked the right template to tag it with--I had to do some poking around to choose one, as this is my first time tagging something for POV. -Eric ^talk 22:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup. It does seem to be heating up over there!

I just put up this remark on the talk page re. requesting input/mediation from the Catholicism Wikiproject folks...

—Wikiscient— 01:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the vandal fighting and reverts you did to my talk page. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

re: Shekhinah/Shakti

I understand where you're coming from in saying we should wait to see if it can be sourced, and I also realise the sentence in question only says "some say this" not "this is true", but I don't believe even mentioning such fringe/crackpot speculation in an anotherwise serious article should really be encouraged even with sourcing. Now, I couldn't find an exactly opposing source that says "Shekhinah is not related to Shakti", but a look at both the pages Shekhinah and Shakti gives plausible native etymologies for both words; there is no real question of a Semitic origin for the word Shakti, or for that matter an Indo-Aryan origin for the word Shekhinah. I agree with you that the possibility of such long range religious correspondences are intriguing, but upon a close examination most are revealed as new age quackery that have no place in a serious encyclopedia. --86.135.122.192 (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Points taken, and I have re-deleted the comment in question -- though I'm still not sure it's quite so completely far-fetched as all that! ;)

 !   Wikiscient 13:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)