User talk:Manning Bartlett
|
|
Wow! Guess I better go and find all of my old talk pages...
Hi Manning -- Just wanted to let you know you've been much missed! JHK
Ahh Jules, you sweet talker you! It's good to be back, even if it is only for 10 days :( - MB
Thanks for the welcome... welcome back yourself! I'll have to think about the list - I already have 18 mailing lists feeding into my mailbox every day, though if Yahoo keeps on being beastly that number will be diminishing considerably... anyway, I bet you're glad to be back in Australia :) KJ
- I see you succumbed and joined the list... hehe, I knew you would. Face it, you're an addict like the rest of us :) Am I glad to be back in God's Own Earth...? Don't get me started. Still we need to be sent overseas to third world places such as India, Kenya, Bangladesh,England and the United States every now and then to be reminded how privileged we are to live in Paradise. - Cheers MB
- You're so glad to be back here that you're leaving again! Tell me - did the doctors ever say you swallowed anything unusual when you were a child? A boomerang perhaps?! lol Scuse me - it's just the sleep-deprivation talking. Must not write. Must go... to...
bed... no - write more... no - bed... no - wri...zzzzzzzzz Seriously, I'm very glad that my friend Michael showed me this url - I wonder if he's around still? Not under his real name if he is. - KJ
- You're so glad to be back here that you're leaving again! Tell me - did the doctors ever say you swallowed anything unusual when you were a child? A boomerang perhaps?! lol Scuse me - it's just the sleep-deprivation talking. Must not write. Must go... to...
Hi Manning - I've just been looking at an article on Meta - 'The problem of defining sanity', originally by Bruce Harrington. It seemed to me (and at least one other user) that this was a reasonably valid and NPOV encyclopedia article - maybe not perfect but a good start. Admittedly I'm no expert on the subject to judge. I noticed it was you that put it in Meta - do you have any particular objections to it being in the encyclopedia? Enchanter
- Enchanter - Believe it or not I have never even read the article. Before the meta site existed we use to hae a page called "Wikipedia Commentary" which was a place where people could put their essays, and it was specifically free of NPOV restrictions. Hence Bruce himself put the article there. When meta was created I was simply tasked with relocating all the material from the commentary section to the meta domain. - cheers MB
Found this over in stub articles, it's an orphan too: ManningBartlett/revision 93. Can I delete it? It looks like some kind of old leftover from an experiment long past. Bryan Derksen, Sunday, May 26, 2002
Thanks for fixing the Georgetown problem. -- Zoe
Hey Manning, great to see you back in action! A few of us sysops have been overwhelmed as being the only fully active members of the militia for a couple of months now. I hope you don't think I've been trying to take things over here -- its just in my nature to fill leadership voids until someone more qualified shows up. I really do want to get back to writing and editing more articles -- there is only so much joy in spending most of my time here focused on doing sysop duties such as organization, reviewing pages in the deletion queue, and welcoming newcomers. I have a feeling you will be a very strong (re)addition to the militia -- don't expect me to agree with you on everything though. :) --maveric149
Hey mate - I'll reply offline and you can fill me in. You've done very good work though :) And when have we ever "all" agreed on anything, ever? - MMGB
Important note for all sysops: There is a bug in the administrative move feature that truncates the moved history and changes the edit times. Please do not use this feature until this bug is fixed. More information can be found in the talk of Brion VIBBER and maveric149. Thank you. --maveric149
Hi Manning. I took the liberty of moving your numerous old subpages (ManningBartlett/pages) to the user namespace, as I'm on a bit of a cleaning kick at the moment. None of the links are broken. Just wanted to let you know that I was messing around with your stuff. :) --Stephen Gilbert
Are you back now, or just visiting? It would be great to see more of you in Recent Changes. --mav
- Is that your polite way of saying "Manning, you've been a slack bastard!" ? :-) I'll do my best - been really busy in my annoying real life.
- Hey... BF
See [1] (http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Drawbacks_of_Philosophical_Understandings) B
| Contents |
Lucid dreaming isn't pseudoscience!
Lucid dreaming has been experienced by most people and there are definately methods (such as Dream Incubating a dream involving Reality Checks - see the article) to get lucid dreams. It's a very interessting part of psychology or biology because it offers access to your subconcious much like hypnotism, etc except that the subject has control and can pretty make up whatever he wants to the scientists. What is pseudo about it is shared dreams, spirit guides, and other similar spirituality topics. The phenomena definately exists thou (as much as anything else exists, that is...) r3m0t 21:09, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Umm... why are you ranting at me? I'm the one who took lucid dreaming off the pseudoscience page and gave credit for its scientific validity in the first place. - MB
Manning Clark's first name was not William, as you say at Talk:Gough Whitlam. His name was Charles Manning Hope Clark. Adam 02:27, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Well there you go then. My original point about getting stuck with a weird first name still stands though :_ - MB
WikiProject proposal
Hi, I've moved your proposal for WikiProjects to Wikipedia:WikiProject proposal. It seems to have been well accepted. I have a question about it: in the first paragraph, you mention a "general 'suggestions' page". Which page was this? --Eequor 03:45, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Damn man! This was written like three years ago! I assume it only still exists for historical purposes? The "general suggestions" page evolved into the Village Pump.Manning 17:21, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, let me retract that, the general suggestions page also became the Meta. I think I can take some credit for that - Wikipedia in the beginning had both articles and policy pages all mixed in (we didn't have these fancy namespaces either - all the user pages were mixed in with the 'pedia pages.) I remember arguing for the removal of all policy discussions to meta -but I think a lot of that argument actually happened on wikipedia-L. Manning 17:29, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Welcome back!
My lord it was nice to see you on IRC and in RC. It's been forever. Please stay this time. --mav 11:35, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think I post a full explanation for both my absence and my return - everyone seems so interested. Thanks for your kind words, and let me say in return what a good job you've done with the old girl.Manning 17:25, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Welcome back :) →Raul654 18:17, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
Circumcision
In your searches for anti-circumcision and pro-circumcision material...
Did you, by any chance, find any group of activists crusading for the position that infant boys probably shouldn't be circumcised, but that if they are, so what, it's just not that big a deal?
Because if you did, I'd like to join it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:43, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Certainly did - a fairly well-balanced group at Circlist (http://www.circlist.com/circhome.html). They are neither pro- nor anti-, just state the facts. They do have a page for "coping with rabid anti-circumcision fanatics" which I enjoyed reading. - cheers MB
Genital Integrity
Hi, glad to make your acquaintance, and welcome back! But please take a peek at my addition to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Genital Integrity, and fix things if i've gone off the deep end. [smile] --Jerzy(t) 05:11, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
Don't know if you realize that the normal fate in Keeps like Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Genital Integrity upon completion is for that discussion to be renamed to, i think, either Talk:Genital Integrity or Talk:Genital Integrity/Delete, with the intent that it function as an aid to any continued or otherwise relevant discussion there.
(I may be too enamoured with things happening in the least ambiguous ways, for minimum of long-term doubt and confusion; in any case, my suggestion for maximum clarity would be that the person who revived it be the one to do such a rename, and as soon as there seems to be comprehension, among current participants in the discussion, that the Del/Keep question is settled.) --Jerzy(t) 18:54, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
[From this point, Jerzy(t) 18:11, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC) took the liberty of refactoring, into the two separate discussions he should probably have started separately in the first place.]
- Hi Jerzy - I was not yet ready to pronounce the situation with Genital Integrity "completed. I had written an alternative solution, and was waiting to see if the debate dies down. If you feel that the debate is over, feel free to take appropriate action, as I won't have time for another 24 hours or so (just checking my messages today and then off to work). Manning 23:25, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
- I won't have time for a few hours to look carefully at the page or do anything about it, but don't be surprised if you see it moved or refactored, even tho i still think your marking the end of the debate you restarted would be the healthiest thing.
- It looks to me, to the contrary, like the ruckus is on the rise rather than ebb, and at the least i will convert the link to the presently transcluded discussion page into a regular link, so not every VfD reader has to load the bloated GI page. And i'll keep you posted abt what i do & why. --Jerzy(t) 00:48, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)
Just want to let you know i didn't do the move and deletion. (And, boy, was i relieved when i figured out you didn't either. [grin]) I'll probably do the repair, but i'd like to consult w/ you beforehand. --Jerzy(t) 22:12, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)
- No, i'm wrong, it should be done immediately, at least in a holding pattern, to minimize consternation. --Jerzy(t) 22:25, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)
- Manning, IMO this is really out of hand, and i can't figure out what you're waiting for. As i said before, i thot it would do less damage for you to call the end to what you revived. I am about to beg for 8 hours delay in the pressure to stop treating this like a special case.
- I recommend:
- Rename Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Genital Integrity to Talk:Genital Integrity/deletion discussion. No cut-and-paste moves!
- Put a link on Talk:Genital Integrity to Talk:Genital Integrity/deletion discussion, with a description indicating further discussion should be on the talk page.
- Rewrite the redirect that the move will create at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Genital Integrity to read "#REDIRECT Talk:Genital Integrity".
- Put notices at the top and bottom of the present Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Genital Integrity (which will at that point be Talk:Genital Integrity/deletion discussion, requesting that no changes be made to it as it's being kept as a history of the VfD discussion.
- Take the advice of someone you trust, who's been around longer than me and more recently than you, and/or consult Wikipedia:Protection Policy, to decide whether to protect the page (24 hrs? a week?) in order to help move the momentum onto the talk page.
--Jerzy(t) 21:12, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)
Well, never mind. When i went to save this:
Why is this still here?
There is no need for this vote anymore. Consensus, at the time, was highly in favor of a merge/redirect. A user took it upon himself to merge the article resulting in the current version of Genital Integrity. Since then the votes in favor of keep have increased signifigantly. That indicates to me that the present form of the article is acceptable. Those who voted redirect got their wish, those who voted keep still have a Genital Integrity article and thus should be happy. There aren't enough votes in the delete columb to indicate a consensus over the other two groups. It's time to delist and archive the debate. --Starx 13:57, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Isn't this funny It seems that over runs of dates are allowed so that single issue groups can rally the faithful from the far corners of the internet. What is the point of voting or setting target dates? Or does this indicate that fanatics will get their way as they will just wear everyone else down and into submission. Wkipedia should get its act together!
- [Posted by User:Robert Brookes, 3 days WP registration, 31 edits solely on genital-related pages; he summarized this edit "Why bother to vote?".]
My understanding is that the admin who put back, on the main VfD page, a link to this page, anticipated that further discussion would serve to provide an opportunity to settle some of the rancorous controversy that the usual 5 days' discussion involved.
I've been opposing reversal of that action, on procedural grounds that don't need to be discussed here. I am now also impatient to get this discussion onto a talk page unrelated to deletion; i request another 8 hours forbearance from those whose impatience ripened before mine.
--Jerzy(t) 21:16, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)
i got an edit conflict; someone is adding the "closed" footer to it. --Jerzy(t) 21:16, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)
WikiProjects
On a different subject, i admire your work on the WikiProject scheme, and feel it has not be intensively enuf used for the community to really turn it into a tool in their toolboxes. Do you think it could help if you made yourself available as a consultant to those implementing the model in specific cases? Do you have other thoughts about furthering its goals?
--Jerzy(t) 18:54, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
- As far as the WikiProject debate - I'd be more than happy to act as a consultant, but in keeping with the philosophy of Wikipedia where "all editors are equal" I will never waltz in and take an "authority" role. If a group of users want to approach me and ask for help I would naturally assist wherever possible, but I won't try to position myself as a leader or mentor - it's distasteful. Manning 23:25, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Mais oui. But IMO you are the one with the clearest vision of what it can do; equal or no we each have different expertise, and (even if e.g. my problem was missing previous mention of the 5-10 figure you ref. below) we aren't all going to grasp the concept immdediately w/o expert help. --Jerzy(t) 00:48, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)
- As far as furthering its goals - things seem to be going OK. A wikiproject never works without a critical mass of users - you need at least five and probably 10 or more before the administrative effort becomes less than the benefit it delivers. I'll have a closer look when I get time and give you some more opinions later - I have some ideas but need to polish them first. Manning 23:25, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
The following is at Wikipedia:Village pump#Best practice for WikiProject ?:
- [Heading markup removed:] Best practice for WikiProject ?
- I have started a new article to discuss the best ways to lead a WikiProject. Any comments are more than welcome (please do them directly in the Talk page). Pcarbonn 05:46, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
--Jerzy(t) 18:11, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)
Your redirect page
You seem to have a page (ManningBartlett) that redirects to your userpage. Unless I'm mistaken, that is against the policies of Wikipedia. supadawg 17:06, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- You are mistaken, sort of. It is generally unacceptable in the present day of MediaWiki. The page you found is a relic from the days before that when there was simply no other way of creating a user page. The page exists as a redirect (as opposed to being deleted) because of external weblinks that refer back to it (which I have no ability to edit, obviously) - these would otherwise generate a "Do you want to create a page?" message. If you searched really hard you would find a handful of other pages like this from users who were here a long time ago. Manning 23:10, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikiproject Sydney
Want to join? I'm still formulating policy. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:07, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)