User talk:Washington irving

Hello Washington, I just read your comment on the Hutton talk page and wanted to welcome you to wikipedia.  :)

A tip for signing your name (which I didn't figure out for ages): type three tildes, ~~~, to sign your name, and four to sign your name and add a date stamp.

If you need help on how to title new articles check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and The FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check The Village pump or The Reference Desk! And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my talk page.

You said you made some edits before you got an account, if you'd like to have them assigned to this user name, you can do that by posting a request on Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit.

I hope you enjoy yourself (I do!) and decide to stay.  :)
fabiform | talk 13:30, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome Washington.  :) Do give me a yell if you get stuck with anything on wikipedia. Once you get over the shock of your words being edited for the first time, I'm sure you'll enjoy the project. I actually quite enjoy people tweaking what I write, I think of them as my personal copy-editors.  ;) I read somewhere the other day that it doesn't matter if you add rubbish to wikipedia because if you add it to a popular article someone will quickly notice and change it, and if you add it to an unpopular article, no one will read it anyway! So, don't worry too much before you edit an article, there's no need to be intimidated. Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages  :) fabiform | talk 23:34, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just thought that I'd say you're doing good work on Hutton and associated topics. Thanks. Secretlondon 23:04, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks secret. I tried to reply on your page but may not have done it right. Washington irving 23:04, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Washington, I noticed that you created the Defence Intelligence Staff entry within minutes of me making a start with Operation Rockingham, which apparently is a part of DIS. Have you heard of this unit before? You seem very knowledgeable. I read about them for the first time today in a John Pilger article (link in the Rockingham article), but I feel they might be crucial for understanding the WMD debacle in Iraq. Keep up the good work! best, pir 2:30, Feb 4, 2004

Thanks for your comments pir. Haven't quite sussed how to talk on your page yet, so I hope you read this. I have heard of Rockingham, but no more than that. Will be interested to find out more. Washington irving 23:04, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

thanks, washington, I read it here. The Sunday Herald article that revealed the existence of "Operation Rockingham" also talks about the Pentagon's "Office of Special Plans" which seems to have a similar function : "The OSP was set up by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to gather intelligence which would prove the case for war. In a staggering attack on the OSP, former CIA officer Larry Johnson told the Sunday Herald the OSP was 'dangerous for US national security and a threat to world peace', adding that it 'lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam'. He added: 'It's a group of ideologues with pre-determined notions of truth and reality. They take bits of intelligence to support their agenda and ignore anything contrary. They should be eliminated.'"

I wonder what kind of paper the Sunday Herald is, if they are reliable. There's no wikipedia entry. pir 5:30, Feb 4, 2004

Hello again. Only after writing Iraq Intelligence Commission (UK) did I find Butler Inquiry - maybe we could merge both articles, create redirects and have a few more wikilinks to them? pir 03:28, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Washington. I agree with you on nomenclature, 'Butler inquiry' is best. Won't be around for a few days, but I will probably have time to help merge both articles after that. pir 20:05, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi - to write on someone's talk page - you go to their user page and then click discuss this page. Secretlondon 20:09, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

---

I've protected a whole slew of pages involved in the Bird dispute, and if possible they need to be fact checked and/or listed for deletion. David Newton 20:53, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How do I go about doing this? Some of the material contributed by Bird is questionable, and the prominence given to different topics is debatable. However, the bulk of what s/he has contributed seems to me (a cognitive neuroscientist/biological psychologist) as accurate as any other article in the early stages of a major rewrite. I always planned to go back and review the text once s/he'd calmed down a bit. The edits were coming thick and fast for quite a while -- with no summaries, so it was difficult to check the changes as they occurred. Plus, I always thought there was something a bit funny about Bird's interactions with other wikipedians (see early versions of Birds talk page), and that made me avoid direct contact. Bird has suggested that s/he copied chunks out of books. All I can say is that if Bird most of his/her material from books/internet sources, the nature and number of the edits alone suggests to me that there is little direct plagiarism here.

If left to my own devices I would revert to the last pre-Bird versions of Brain and List of regions in the human brain and then begin adding Bird's material back in, checking for factual accuracy and rewording/restructuring to avoid any possible plagiarism in the original version while doing so. The Human brain page was started by Bird, so it could be started again from scratch. Much of the content seems accurate if rather unbalanced. All this will be a big job. It is a shame Bird picked on the brain, cos it's an interesting and important topic, and not that controversial at this level. To be honest, I expect Bird will be back in some form or other (phoenix perhaps) to disrupt whatever efforts I or anyone else makes. Washington irving 21:25, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your assumptions are unfounded and slanderous. You blamed bird for your failure to participate in an editorial process despite repeated posts by myself and bird to encourage qualified collaboration. Now you claim you knew all along bird was disruptive. Hmmm. But you feel it important to find out by jumping in and moving images around without comment and after bird has invited discussion of the matter.

I now understand why the brain list was wrong when I arrived and the article was a jumble of sophomoric recollections left over from todays' physiology class - Washington Irving was watching the page.

You apparently feel yourself qualified not only to say how these pages should develop but to also diagnose the condition of other writers. If I find you hold a medical license, I promise I will complain to your state licensing authorities that you are practicing out of school.

What is apparent is that the whole sad lot of you who have made it your mission to adopt a confrotational posture are quite comfortable talking about a person and talking to a person, but you lack any skills for talking with a person whom you think might challenge you. That is why you backed away from this user name and from bird - you knew you were facing responses prepared with sufficient mental resources to challenge you in your own field. If Bird thought there was a hint of cooperative spirit among this group I am certain the user would willingly continue to develop articles. But it appears you have a different reality designed, in which bird is a vandal and you are the do-good who came along and fixed it. I'm sure you can find plenty of people here who will play along with your fantasy role play game. But it appears the popular rumour in newsrooms nationwide is being confirmed here - Wikipedia looks like an encyclopedia but it is really a place where academics can hide behind a computer and try to bully people with their knowledge.

Bear in mind as you fact check but fail to verify if what I contributed is in fact original intellectual product, you watched a page that said the cerebellum is part of the archipallium for weeks and had nothing to say, you say because you wanted to exploit a manic who was producing free articles for your project before the inevitable burnout, which you of course anticipated. Says a lot about your people skills. And your ethics. Hide and rush out on the attack when whoever challenged you is retreating. Your a real big man today, Irving. I'm so impressed. SoCal 02:19, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It turned out to be Raptor! (see [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress&diff=2684105&oldid=2684055)) So I wasn't far wrong. I liked the bit on Bird's talk page about "none of you have the skills to work with me", an interesting turn of phrase, and remarkably insightful. Washington irving 21:55, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

well, yes, how ignorant of bird. We all know anybody from the more cosmopolitan and wealthy regions of hte Western world would say "none of you has the skill to retain Bird as a collaborative partner" It sounds like you are already celebrating birds flight because you wont have to read any more articles and think "I wish I wrote that." SoCal

How about this: How about you go do the legwork to find a public domain brain image, of a non-hominoid species but which is larger than the cat brain so it will fit in a close series of three images that I tried and thoughtfully found to be too imposing with the human brain there. You cut out the background pixel by pixel and you deal with uploading and well, golly gee, you already know the layout language, so you wont' even have to bone up to participate, you can just throw that image right on the page where you threw the human brain image and find out if users are a little more comfortable with that configuration. And then I can stand back and say, no it looks better over there. And chances are I might consider three images in the middle space to be balance. But my opinion might be based on nothing more than what you base your opinion opinion about image placement

But that would run the risk for you of falsifying your theory that you didn't participate in editing these pages because you knew the writer to be insane. I doubt you know how to hike up to the high road.

Oh, this one is really irking me. You intentionally overlook factual errors in an open editorial project and say it is because you knew the contributor to be insane. God. I suggest you delete your user name and spend some time thinking about who you've become. SoCal 02:44, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 Hang in there 2 Uncodified and largely unwritten 3 Brain article 4 Hippocampus 4.1 Amygdala 5 Article Licensing 6 Image source

Hang in there

This will blow over. -- Decumanus 07:37, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to second this. These users/this user is so far out of line it's not true... you have the support of the community. You might just have to ignore their rantings for a while until they are banned/dealt with.  :) fabiform | talk 14:02, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Whatever fabiform. My advice to irving is to cash in the user name and come back with a pseudonym that has no reputation other than the credibility that affixes to what they wrote in the last few hours. I don't hear anyone paying much attention to Bird's concerns about level of accuracy in neuroscience stories, so it appears this community needs somebody to get way out of line because this community is lined up in the wrong place. This community is about power and prestige and I am about crashing that sick party with a technically accurate diagnosis of the disease, which is exactly the content I submitted and you sad souls are now falling all over yourself to keep - The neurochemistry of oppression.

I can confront your oppressive language as quick as you can shape the words An angry mob has seldom backed me down before and it won't interfere with my ambition here to expropriate knowledge from power-lords who use it to enforce their political will. Bird

Bird seems keen to replace IP addresses. I have noticed one or two, that have been replaced. (e.g., see Bird's edit before this one). Might be worth keeping track of for future reference. Washington irving 16:27, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Washington Irving seems keen to attribute malicious motive rather than consder the obvious solutions first. Bird likely failed to log in, then noticing that the post was signed with an IP rather than a username, reedited so the posting would be signed.

The propaganda technique Washington Irving is applying here is to frame the discussion in terms of policing another person, implying that force and domination is the appropriate approach because the other person's concerns are not worthy of consideration. Irving appears to be a regular propagandist at this site, who drivled together a few articles on brain science to lend credibility to the campaign which followed, which was a series of articles describing public discourse in terms of propaganda, as propaganda is described by Democrat or Green political interests. Reality check

---

You definitely have our support. I combatted him briefly yesterday and got a taste of the vandalism you appear to have been facing: let me know if he resurfaces, and I'll be happy to help run interference. Jwrosenzweig 16:55, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So you enjoyed some combat yesterday. Is that why you participate in Wikipedia, Jwrosenzweig?Reality check

---

I would add my voice to those who are supporting you. Running into such a persistent troll and vandal after less than six weeks of editing here cannot be a pleasant experience. If it's any comfort for you, this is my first big dispute as an admin here as well. Less than a week after becoming an admin, I spot a strange edit summary for brain and end up being at the centre of the storm over this. However, I've had to deal with trolls this bad at the message board I run as well, so I'm not entirely a novice at this sort of thing.

Keep the faith, and as others have said, it will eventually blow over! David Newton 19:25, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Uncodified and largely unwritten

Hi there - I think that this should read that it is uncodified but partly unwritten, it is clear which elements are unwritten, but it is uncodified as a whole since it is not written down in any one single place or small group of documents. The current version is not strictly correct. Mark Richards 21:46, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I responded to your comments on the talk page. I don't want to make a big deal. My main issue was with the wording. I accept that the current version needs changing. Mind you I think it's easy to overemphasize the degree to which the written elements of constitutional law add up to a (albeit uncodified) constitution. If its only constitutional because Erskine May or the Queen or custom and practice or whatever says so, what's to stop some future leader from deciding that it isn't part of the constitution. For instance I think its crackers that according to some constitutional experts (Norman St. John Stevas is normally asked) Prince Charles couldn't become King if he married a Catholic (or a divorcee or commoner - can't remember which). Who says? Washington Irving | Talk 22:25, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I, too, don't want to make a big deal of it, and have responded on the talk page. I agree that the UK constitution is a different kind of creature to the kind that was written at some founding moment by a group of people who claimed some special legitimacy. It came into being in a very different way. The issues of whether these documents are a 'real' constitution depend on your definitions, but the UK arrangements definately serve the purpose of a constitution, they govern the actions of the various parts of government. I agree that some might think prohibitions on who the monarch can mary are crackers, but then, there are elements of the US constitution that some find surprising! It's also worth noting that there is nothing in principle preventing a future leader in the US changing the constitution. The constitution itself sets out the ways in which this could be done, but this, too, could be changed. Somewhere here there must be a place for such musings? Where do you think it might be? Mark Richards 22:39, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sadly I fear that the only place is here (on the User_talk: pages), but I'm happy to shoot the breeze. Agree that any constitution can be overridden by a tyrant-dictator. However, in the UK, you wouldn't need to be a tyrant. In the US kids learn the constitution at school and every one of them knows that they have certain rights under it (I'm British, and even I know that I could plead the fifth amendment in a US court). Whereas in the UK, nobody quite knows what their rights are, or if they have any. The EU Convention on Human Rights has helped a bit.

I'll just reply here rather than copying to your page. Washington Irving | Talk 22:53, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's a matter of degree, although in practice, I wonder what real differences there are? For example, although the US constitution guaruntees the right to bear arms, the degree to which one can actually do this is severely limited. The right to free speech is also limited in many areas. The Patriot act in the States undermines several key freedoms. I'm not convinced that, in practice, the UK's constitution is any more flimsy, although I agree that in principle it is - I think there should be an article on the theoretical and practical merits of different types of constitution - would you help write it? Mark Richards 17:26, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't really feel qualified. But I'd try to help in any way I could. Quite interested in the topic, so I'd be willing to do a bit of background reading. British constitution which is a bit stubby at present. It might be the place to spell out the advantages and disadvantages of the unusual scheme (the distinction between uncodified and unwritten is already covered, and there is a redirect from "unwritten constitution", though this may be over-general).

In my view a constitution is something which specifies or lays out the principles of government practice. If it is weak in principle it is weak in practice. But I admit the British constitution has worked reasonably well. This may be more by luck than judgement. Washington Irving | Talk 17:38, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the UK Constitution with it's remnant of hereditory privilige, lack of a solid bill of rights, weak unwritten protections etc is offensive in many ways - it's only real saving grace is that it does not seem to produce notably worse government than any other system. I think an article on comparative constitutions might be worth while - I moved the current UK constitution article from Unwritten constitution because I didn't think that was the most important feature. What about Comparative constitutional principles and practice or something like that? Mark Richards 17:44, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK with me. It could start with an informal comparison of US and UK constitutions and add other models. Will try to help, but my time may be limited. Will add to watchlist if you start it. Apologies in advance if I fail to contribute as much as I might. The spirit is willing... Washington Irving | Talk 17:47, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm slammed right now too - when we both get some time! Yours, Mark Richards 17:32, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've responded to your Andrew Gilligan comments on my talk: page. Dbiv 18:32, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Brain article

Hey WA. Now that the Bird controversy has died down, the brain article still needs some help. The article has been identified as an article that could use improvement by Wikipedia:WikiProject Science and a proposed to-do list has been added to the talk page. If you'd like to contribute, your expertise would be appriciated. If not, I understand since you apparently had some rough edit wars there. Sayeth 21:34, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Hippocampus

Hi WA. I really love the hippocampus image you provided. I'd love to see more similar images. I'm a first-year med student taking Neuroscience, and it's really helpful to have an idea of what the whole structure looks like - we mostly look at cross-sections, and it's a little difficult sometimes to reconstruct them into a full picture. Please consider posting more.

69.107.113.10 Sara 13:56, Oct 24, 2004 (PST)

Amygdala

Tnx, keep them pictures coming! BTW, Im assuming the pictures are GFDL'ed, are they? Bemoeial 20:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I made this Amygdala image (and the similar Hippocampus image), and these low resolution versions are intended to be public-domain (I forgot how to add the license info to the image page). The Brodmann Area images (which I also made) are released under GFDL.

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)| talk)

Image source

Thank you for uploading Image:Brainlobes.png. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you. --Ellmist 04:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)