User:Pmanderson

This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pmanderson.

[1][2]

I have found the following long list links useful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:Tutorial
• Wikipedia:Help desk
• M:Foundation issues
• Wikipedia:Policy Library
• Wikipedia:Utilities
• Wikipedia:Cite your sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Conflict resolution
• Wikipedia:Use English
• Wikipedia:Featured articles
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate.
• Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
• Wikipedia:Peer review
• Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
• Wikipedia:Village pump
• Wikipedia:Boilerplate text
• Wikipedia:IRC channel
• Wikipedia:Mailing lists
• Wikipedia:Current surveys
• Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion
• WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox
• Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point especially the recognition that WP is inconsistent.
• wannabe_kate

• kate's tool

Feel free to contact me here.

(A word of advice; it makes no sense, but you will get more respect if you create your user page).

I am opposed to all efforts to impose uniformity on Wikipedia; imposition of national or political PoV are the worst, and most common of these; but the AD/CE edit war is another and clearer example. The wiki solution to the problem would be for anyone who was editing a sentence anyway to change the style if he objected to it, and otherwise to leave it alone. It is an elementary theorem of probability theory that the proportion of AD to CE would then reflect the proportion of people who prefer one to the other, and WP would achieve uniformity when the world does - and not before.

The same logic applies to the doubtless well-intentioned effort to format Wikipedia identically in every article, and to the recurring spats over Anglo-American usage. Both of these are also contrary to express policy, and I approve those policies.

Eventually Wikipedia will get it right. [3]

A few words quoted from Jimbo which have not gotten enough attention in all this:

*g* Funny isn't it? I keep stumbling across pages ranting against my irrational vendetta and ban of userboxes when basically I'm just saying Everyone please relax a notch or two.--Jimbo Wales 02:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be an understanding that you have given the OK for mass userbox deletion. I think it would be helpful if you could make it fully clear that this is not the case. Everyking 04:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how I could be any more clear about it.--Jimbo Wales 14:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that divisive and inflammatory userboxes should be deleted. I am convinced by the events of the last few months that they should not be speedied. The reform proposal linked to a few sections above makes abundantly clear the amount of judgment involved in the application of T1; other speedy criteria can be verified trivially, and usually all reasonable editors will agree when they have been met.

TfD will also usually get rid of something faster, since speedies will often be listed on WP:UBD; and Undeletion will be seriously discussed and often approved. (Of course TfD's can be nominated for undeletion too; but if there has been visible consensus, the deletion reviewers will ignore it.) Septentrionalis 15:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There are five different approaches to a Manual of Style. MOS should use most of them; it doesn't. Approach 4 is all too often advocated, but Wikipedia is not an exercise in language reform.

One example which actually came up was the proposal to ban "one fourth" in favor of "one quarter"; the examples below are possible statements based on that (hopefully uncontroversial) divergence.

1. Discuss the possibilities
   • North American English tends to use fourth; other Commonwealth English tends to use quarter.
   • There are exceptions to this rule of thumb in both direct.
   • Quarter can be used of a division into more than four pieces
2. Make a recommendation
   • In general, use fourth in articles written in American English; quarter in articles in Commonwealth English.
3. Establish a rule for Featured Articles
   • Featured Articles must use fourth in articles written in American English; quarter in articles in Commonwealth English.
4. A new improved, modern English
   • Always use fourth, because it's logical
   • Always use quarter. This was the original proposal.
5. Don't edit just to change one style to another
   • If an article has quarter as an established stylistic choice, don't change to fourth without discussion and consensus.

I think this example makes clear why MoS #2 and MoS #3 should not be the same; we can reasonably suggest that American articles use "fourth", but we should not deprive an article of FA because someone has used "quarter" instead; American English can, as Ursula K. Le Guin did.

Only MOS #3 and MOS #4 require consistency between one MOS page and another. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We've seen these all too often; somebody notices that an aspect of Wikipedia (usually one he does not use himself) can be abused - and calls a Crusade:

• Userboxes are evil; ban all userboxes.
• Admins can be abusive; desysop all admins.
• Anon accounts vandalize; semi-protect all articles.
• Editors can be nitwits; protect all articles.

We've seen all of these; the last usually in some modified form , because even our Crusaders do sometimes edit articles.

These Crusades have a number of common features:

• A declaration the sky is falling
• An utter absence of evidence that our normal procedures aren't dealing with the abuses.
• The EVIL practice X is usually something which makes no substantive difference to article space, but which some editors find useful.
• Reasoning of the form: "I don't do X (use userboxes/edit anonymously...); why should you have the right to do X? After all, it can be abused."

After six months or so, either it doesn't pass, and somehow the sky manages not to fall; or it does pass, some established editors are harassed, a large number of newbies are driven away, and we watch our expansion slow further - but there's never any great improvement to the encyclopedia.

If I have linked to this section, it probably means that I oppose giving some Crusader an office of trust or profit. Recent Crusades include:

• The complaint (quite literally) that User:Docu signed his posts with Docu instead of four tildes. Some actually proposed to block Docu for this scandalous offense. Docu is not the one who should be blocked.
• This Crusade to block all alt accounts (as opposed to abusive alt accounts, which are the only ones we can recognize) is merely unenforceable and useless - but it did inspire this thread.
• The perpetual Crusades at MOS to mandate one of several valid forms of English; the latest is an effort to decree that we should use 19th century and not nineteenth century. Really; I'm not making this up. Admittedly, unless resisted, as in the late Date-delinking disaster, this rarely begins with the cry "the sky is falling"; but it rapidly emerges. Part of the problem appears to be thinking in terms of a community of MOS editors, as opposed to a community of editors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The desperation to support an untenable position to which one is nonetheless committed has caused centuries of extreme mental gymnastics. - Laurie R. King.

• Macedonia (region) (history|Talk|th)
• Alexander Hamilton (history|Talk|th)
• DPT (history|Talk|th)
• Coc (history|Talk|th)
• Carpetbagger (history|Talk|th)
• Chimera (history|Talk|th)
• R._J._Rummel (history|Talk|th)
• Phaistos_Disc (history|Talk|th)
• Perpetual peace (history|Talk|[th)
• Proto-Ionians (history|Talk|th)
• Greeks (history|Talk|th)
• others

• Clarify Waring's problem.
• Update Menander from 1911
• Create Tenedos and Imbros.
• Proofread Offices in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
• Random mathematics article, thanks to User:Jitse Niesen
• Finley on Slavery in ancient Greece
• user:Pmanderson/notes
• User:Pmanderson/sandbox
• Popularize <span id="Section title"> which #REDIRECT [[Pagetitle#Section title]] will redirect to.
• Mediation link
• Article statistics

Spore - The Mooncow Glosses - Simon's RPG site - King Sheep - Smithson - Prairie Muffins - lenga - Serenity - Don't Press - Dragonlore - Superdickery, Doc - BattleMaster - Blogs as Vanity Fair KS922

Strong's - calculator - Mathscinet - Mathematical junkyard - primes - primetest - Elliptic primes

Lycos - Altavista - google - Babel Fish - IP identification

Smith - Latin Library - Perseus - Berlin Perseus - Perseus 4.0 - Liddell and Scott

NYT - The other WP - Grauniad - CSMonitor - Beeb

TNR - The Nation - Clay Bennett - Slate - Salon - Common Dreams - Prospect -

Yahoo Groups - My Yahoo - Art Songs

Alistair Cooke; requiescat in pace

Irony -Maps -GG -Polity IV -Amazon - ISFDB

country studies

CIA factbook;single sheet

Viruses

Ld. Peter Soc,

{JHWHC calendar

art

Sharktank

Ren. poetry

Met

http://www.slashdot.org [nerds]

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dfox/porterlyrics.html

http://www.cauce.org [anti-spam]

http://www.casual-gamers.com/

http://www.the-whiteboard.com/autowb541.html

http://flag.blackened.net/ [anarchists]

http://www.sozialistische-klassiker.org

http://members.cox.net/dsleslie1/index.htm [Dana]

http://theeternalgoldenbraid.blogspot.com/ {Fred Kiesche]

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Tom_Carman/

http://www.6thinternational.org

http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/home/jhb/whisky

http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/home/jhb/whisky/malts.html

http://www.titantv.com

geologic history of the Moon

		The Rosetta Barnstar
		For your concise and integral addition of a greek meaning for the article Logos as well as your many other contributions to grecian topics, i present you with the rosetta barnstar award. thank you for your thoughtful and intelligent editing. Some thing 06:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Here's a barnster from a complete stranger for your good work :) QueenCake (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I forgot and put two ~s on each side of the name, instead of four in front. Antonio Giusti 08:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Antonio Giusti

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

I appreciate your efforts to keep New York Manumission Society NPOV. There is in fact a lot of reading on the web about these issues with the society. It's important to keep the coverage neutral.

I'm still wanting to add more "color" to the articles, i.e. specific activities of the group. I've got so much to do and little experience with Wikipedia, that I'm afraid I'm a bit intimidated and overwhelmed.

I know this is too much to ask, but I would really like to keep coverage of the Manumission society as positive and digestible as possible until March. Your edits so far are perfect, I just don't want there to be any edit wars or undue weight. I truly don't think you're the "bad guy" in your dealings with...others, in fact - I can see both sides. (Have you ever thought the user in question might be the source he most cites? Just a thought.)

I'm frankly hoping to enlist your help - if you can do anything at all to collaborate with me on this project (around all of these related articles), I would be so grateful.

Sincerely,

NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 15:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A geographical naming dispute has gone to mediation here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-08-19/Paneriai - it started with one town but its scope has widened to include the entire PL-LT Commonwealth. Since you were involved in writing the naming policies, your input would be welcome. I think some of the policy wordings are problematic and lend themselves to unnecessary volumes of argument. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)