Fred,
I've started to edit some of your "basic process" pages (e.g. sorting, amplifier, etc.) to remove the references and links to basic process. Although I'm not sure that a number of these pages need to exist at all, my chief objection is that defining very widely used terms (e.g. amplifier) via the very particular and not widely used term "basic process" seems fundamentally silly for an encyclopedia. Now you may or may not be correct that basic process is a valid concept for more people than just you and deserves its own page. We can debate that later. But I'm convinced that defining, say, error in terms of basic process is quite idiosyncratic, and will end up being meaningful to very few people. Certainly this cannot be done in the opening paragraph of the article.
I would encourage you to explore the basic process concept, and ways to connect up these other terms in terms of it; there may be some interesting connections lurking around the corner. However, I would encourage you to do it outside Wikipedia; when your pages are here, I am conflicted between wanting to support your exploration and wanting to make your pages more encyclopedia-like. As long as they are here, the latter pull has a better chance of winning out.
--Ryguasu 13:51 Nov 12, 2002 (UTC)
Fred, why have you created "phenomenon" articles all over the place? Why not simply integrate the chemical phenomena with the chemistry article, for example? AxelBoldt 22:12 Nov 26, 2002 (UTC) Fred,
I think the phenomenon articles are very useful to a user of the encyclopedia. Fred Bauder 17:02 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)
I hope my latest stream of edits has not proved too offensive. I wanted to ask you: would you be troubled if we moved basic process to Meta-Wikipedia? Or is there still some part of it that you see as indespensible to our encyclopedic endeavor? --Ryguasu 17:33 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)
I believe it belongs here, but I am not defending it strongly. Please tell me the new address if you do move it. Fred Bauder 16:59 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)
I believe my case is stronger than yours so I have made the move. See m:Basic processes. For an explanation, see talk:Basic process. In case you change your mind and decide the article is very important to you, drop me a note; I'd rather discuss it than become a general in an edit war. --Ryguasu 20:01 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)
"Speak that I may know you." -- Samuel Johnson
You have sysop rights (see Wikipedia:Administrators). --Uncle Ed 13:55 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)
The "mixing" section of Chiropractic medicine now makes no sense. Are you going to change the entire article to your view of chiropracty, or just leave it as a mish-mash? -- Tim Starling 01:58 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)
The problem is that both views are valid. I support a critical view of chiropractic medicine, but the article must also reflect that area where a chiropratic doctor with common sense can deliver helpful remedies. Fred Bauder 12:50 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)
Fred, why do you think it useful to list the same two external links twice in SARS, once under "References" and once under "External links"? AxelBoldt 01:46 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)
References are the source material for the article. External links (which should also be included in references if they were in fact used as source material) are material a user might use for further exploration of the topic. Fred Bauder 11:54 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)
Nobody debates whether or not China is an authoritarian state. There’s some debate over whether or not it’s a totalitarian one; I haven’t made up my mind on that one since it depends on interpretations of many definitions. But I don’t think that it can be called a dictatorship in the typical sense of that word. There’s no dictator.
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but if your revisions are being motivated by some kind of anti-China agenda, please keep the NPOV guidelines in mind. 172
This time I put "nation-state" -- please do not revert. JTDIRL is correct that there is a difference between nation and state, and there is nothing wrong (and indeed good reason) for identifying the PRC as a state. But I did include nation in a nod to you. I also reinserted "variously identified as a socialist, communist, or authoritarian state." This is accurate, NPOV, and inclusive. If you revert again -- please tell me why, Slrubenstein
Well, country or state is fine, nation is wrongheaded. Your user talk page is too long to edit. Fred Bauder 03:31 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)
We are not arguing that China is a "communist" (lower-case "c") society in the Marxist sense, that is a state where the means of production are under common ownership. Whether or not China is a "socialist" society in Marxian terms, defined by state ownership of the means of production, is further irrelevant to this debate. In this context, the term "Communist state" (upper-case "C") strictly refers to the type of government in the same sense that "constitutional monarchy" describes the governments of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, that "federal republic" describes the government-types of the United States and Brazil, that "Islamic republic" describes the government-type of Iran, that "military government" describes the government of Myanmar, and finally that "absolute monarchy" would describe the government of Oman. The government is Communist, ruled by a Marxist-Leninist party.
Divergences between the development levels, levels of state ownership, and economic structures between the five Communist states of China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and North Korea or whether or not China is "capitalist" and has betrayed its Marxist-Leninist philosphy thus don't matter to this discussion (I personally think that they haven't and that they've finally found a workable model of socialism worth revisiting, but that doesn't matter either). The ruling Communist parties of these countries share roughly the same structure and share similarly intertwined state and party institutions and share roughly the same constitutional forms. They represent a common government-type based on the Leninist state and are bound by having to adapt to similar circumstances, that is (with the exception of Castro's Cuba which wasn't at first definitively Communist) supplanting or revamping existing state institutions to fit the mold of an underground revolutionary political party. 172
Makes sense, but all that is trumped by the totalitarian nature of the regimes. Just as in the case of Nazi Germany. Fred Bauder 11:06 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)
You are a lawyer, so you should refrain from making statements as sweeping as comparing the contemporary Chinese leadership with Nazi Germany. 172
Well, the People's Republic of China is not likely to make the same mistake Oscar Wilde did, but one might hope. Fred Bauder 12:06 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)
Hey Fred - There are some guidelines on what to list on the Main Page at Wikipedia:Selected Articles on the Main Page that I think you may find useful. Specifically birth and death days are only listed when they are so extraordinary that they are an event in and of themselves (like the birth of the first test tube baby or the assassination of JFK). Also, an undocumented convention is that items are only listed after their corresponding day page has fallen off the Main Page. So Chernobyl will be listed tonight after 2400 UTC. Entries also need to be more than simple stubs and the event needs to be explained and the correct day page linked in the subject's article. But Tanzania doesn't have any meaningful prose at the moment - let alone any information or date link for its independence. Oh and the events usually stay listed for 4 or so days - there is no point in changing it out completly every single day so that the list on the Main Page is a summary of what is on the corresponding day page. I hope this helps. :-) --mav 18:42 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)
Quite apart from anything else, the comments you are putting against Communist state simply do not characterise that sort of state. That is, if they did, they could be used to see if a state actually was communist - but they don't. You get any or all of those features against other kinds of states (admittedly, not ones around today) - and, contrariwise, there are models of communist states that don't have those particular features (admittedly, not among those communist states that have ever actually existed - probably because any that were tried either fell under the influence of the USSR at some level or else were modified or destroyed by the influence of those powers that were working against the USSR). Briefly, those features simply don't characterise a Communist state. PML.
"Quite apart from anything else, the comments you are putting against Communist state simply do not characterise that sort of state. That is, if they did, they could be used to see if a state actually was communist - but they don't."
- Communist states rather stick out,usually boldly announcing their nature, Cuba was perhaps the exception. I am not putting comments against, but making generalizations which broadly apply to the class. There are other totalitarian systems which don't fall within the article because they are not communist, for example, Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime in Iraq. Fred Bauder 12:13 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)
"...contrariwise, there are models of communist states that don't have those particular features (admittedly, not among those communist states that have ever actually existed - probably because any that were tried either fell under the influence of the USSR at some level or else were modified or destroyed by the influence of those powers that were working against the USSR)"
- The article is about the communist states which have existed. That their characteristics where partly formed by hostile external forces is undisputed. Fred Bauder 12:13 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)
Alas, in defending you, at Talk:Communist state, my cover was compromised! Fare thee well, fellow vandal-troll! Like a Virgin
Fred, I see that you have created a wiki-environment of your own elsewhere. I want to do the same thing for a local community of artists to use. What software did you use? And where can I get it? :) Kingturtle 05:03 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
Basic-process.org is just html made up to look like a wiki. Interenet-encyclopedia.info uses the wikipedia software which has been recently brought up to date in various ways (should install easier) and is called Phase3. It is at http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/wikipedia/phase3/. For help in downloading and installing subscribe to Wikitech-L, Wikipedia's technical list. I still have not figured out how to upload images, very important for you. It may be that some other wiki software might also work, or work better, but I'm no expert on that, see Wiki_software or ask on Wikitech-l. Fred Bauder 11:47 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
Fred: I don't think there should be distinct Communist state and Communist government entries. They cover the same material, just from slightly different perspectives, and should be integrated as such. Do you disagree? --The Cunctator
On an abstract level I agree. there is no difference between communist state and communist government (a distinction without a difference), but in the present context, given the history of the articles and all the heat generated by them, I would rather see two articles, not because I agree with the notion that jargon from political science trumps common sense, but because I believe in the virtues of redundancy. Articles written from different perspectives increase the utility of the encyclopedia to the user. Fred Bauder 11:46 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
The real problem here is that we are dealing with true believers who genuinely believe the various factual assertions I have included in the article are phony drummed up progaganda. No matter how the articles are organized this problem remains. They are simply not in touch with the profound misery a communist government inflicts on ordinary people, the most profound deficit being a loss of hope. There is a lot of foolishness that goes on in America: It is said that 29% of the American people believe that they are in the top 5% of income; an additional 21% think that they will be eventually in the top 5%. In a communist state all that is turned on its head, you know you are stuck at the bottom and that there is nothing you can do about it. Fred Bauder 11:46 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
If you know something I don't about the ranking of China by area, could you update List of countries by area? Otherwise, put it back to fourth? I don't even know anymore if that was originally your edit, or something someone else changed and it gets swept up in your edits. -- John Owens 14:25 May 11, 2003 (UTC)
Googling this question gives both answers. I'll see what I can do to find an authoritative reference. I did not originate the change to third but have continued to use it based on slightly more google hits. Fred Bauder 15:16 May 11, 2003 (UTC)
Ok see this http://www.loglink.com/countrystats.asp?mode=cs5. If one does not count the world or Antarctica it is third. Fred Bauder 15:30 May 11, 2003 (UTC)
Hi Fred Bauder. Nice to hear from you. Sorry, neither I or Mr. Vibber didn't post the information on your personal page. Would you mind going to Mr. Vibber's page, I gave lots of detail so you and others could find the thousands of copyright-free maps on the internet. If you are just curious about the source, I think one can click on the photo on the image list (desc) and get the details. Hope this answers your question. Drop by again if ever you need something. Always glad to help whenever I can. Triton
I replied to your remarks at Talk:Clovis I but felt it appropriate to ensure you got them here so that you would not be confused again:
Mr. Bauder, sir, Ms. JHK deleted my photo the second time AFTER Mr. Vibber posted the notice that it indeed was proven by me to be copyright free and 100% unquestioningly usable at Wikipedia. As a lawyer sir, please check your facts before you insinuate I have made a false allegation. And sir, as to my conduct, I am not combative other than to defend what I believe as fact as I support you, Ms. JHK and everyone do so as to make Wikipedia the best possible encyclopedia. I believe that is the goal, is it not? My conduct has been extremely restrained in light of Ms. JHK calling my sincere efforts as "nonsense" and "ridiculous" and as you are well aware, she deleted them without just cause. And sir, her behaviour could not possibly be my fault. She has clearly demonstrated that pattern of dismissive and insulting conduct with other contributors and drove them away. Do you condone that, sir? If I have in fact offended even one person at Wikipedia, I will apologize. If I have fought hard for my beliefs against someone who belittles me in public, then sir, I will never apologize but I will never stoop to their level of hurling insults. Being polite helps create bonds of goodwill between all peoples of all nations and races, And, as to my conduct Mr. Bauder, sir, should I use the example set by all those contributors at Talk:Communist state and its archives? Triton
Triton, I see above an excellent example of combativeness. Whether you are right or wrong becomes irrelevant. Fred Bauder 10:12 29 May 2003 (UTC)
Fred Bauder: I regret that I must disagree because I see nothing combative here except for someone being clear, precise and asserting facts which anyone does after having been degraded publicly. Nevertheless, you are entitled to your interpretations, and I respect that fully while not sharing your view and expressly state here and now that my words to you have no intent to be combative whatsoever. I repeat what I have said before: If my ability to express myself in English in Wikipedia to your complete satisfaction is unacceptable and I am being disrespectful or abusive, then take up the issue with Mr. Wales and have him rule that I should leave. Meanwhile, sir, would one not consider the example of Talk:Communist state as beyond combativeness, a matter in which you were very much involved? Was not the conduct of the participants in this discussion a very core issue both on the talk pages as well as the WikiEN-l Archives? I must note how you could not have missed the repeated demands by User:Dante Alighieri in these discusssions that I answer his questions. So, in this vein, I asked you a simple question which you did not answer and I repeat it here:
- "as to my conduct Mr. Bauder, sir, should I use the example set by all those contributors at Talk:Communist state and its archives?"
Because you have chosen to intevene here, you might explain why it is I must answer Dante Alighieri’s questions, but you sir, find it unnecessary to answer mine? Do we have different conduct for different people at Wikipedia? I might suggest your accusation of combativeness is, in my intrepretation, an unwarranted, antagonistic interference and as best I am able to understand your words, combatative, intended to provoke anger rather than elevate quality debate. But again, that is only my intrepretation, I might be misunderstanding your words, past and present. Nevertheless, may I extend my hand in gracious cooperation? I profess no great expertise on the issues at hand, just a desire to help out so if I can assist you with the input you want to give on the issues being debated here, namely the List of French monarchs and Clovis I, then I would very much like to do whatever I can to be of assistance to you. Meanwhile, I look forward to your reply, while respecting your constitutional (Universal) right to do so or not, to my second request of the unanswered question above directly related to your example of personal conduct. Thank you Mr. Bauder, sir. May you have a blessed and joyous visit at Wikipedia. Triton
And, a response to your very correct statement above regarding combativeness: "Whether you are right or wrong becomes irrelevant." That sir, is my entire point. Had Ms. JHK edited and improved my work after proper research, I would have no objection, my abilities are limited, and in fact I would have been very grateful for her (or anyones) valued input. But, Ms. JHK did not and simply removed my work without reason and dismissing it with snide remarks degrading me. Therefore my text additions, right or wrong become irrelevant to the only matter: disgraceful and unacceptable conduct by a participant at Wikipedia. Triton
Fred, I'm sure you have seen the debate on the wiki-list about how discussions on the wiki-list can be thrown up on google searches. As a matter of interest I did a google search on three or four people picked at random from old emails on my hotmail account. As I still had a recent message you had sent to the list from you I put in your name. Unfortunately the following came up -
[WikiEN-l] Fred Bauder and academic dishonesty [WikiEN-l] Fred Bauder and academic dishonesty. Fred Bauder wikien-l@wikipedia.org
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:08:18 -0700: Previous message ...
It doesn't relate to our recent disagreement but to one you had with another person on another issue. Whatever about our disagreement I think it is unfortunate, indeed wrong, that you should be saddled wih the above on a google search. I have suggested on the list that we disconnect google searches from wiki list discussions. If that it done, I presume (though not being technically minded I am just guessing, not certain) that this link would disappear.
Longer term, I have suggested that from now on we avoid using anyone's name in any email names on the list. I presume (though I may be wrong) that google searches can find people's names within emails, though none of the heated discussion we had cropped up. But the above is the name of the email. If we avoid using full names, it might make google searches less able to find w-list discussions. Another alternative might be to use variations on a name, rather than full name. I have generally been against people using real names on wiki. This sort of problem highlights the difficulty that can be caused.
I thought I better let you know that this does crop up via the google search. Feel free, BTW, to erase this message if you want. For all our disagreements, I think it deeply wrong that the above accusation comes up against your name on google. lol FearÉIREANN 23:28 29 May 2003 (UTC)
That was a very informative page on Karl Rove you wrote. LittleDan 15:25 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Well, surely they describe what happens in the book enough to write a stub. LittleDan 15:50 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- I thought Wikipedia supported supported stubs, see Wikipedia:The perfect stub article. I think an external link would count as a sentence. LittleDan
I agree with your readdition of the two paragraphs I removed in knowledge. The article was just a mixed blather of many ideas and views. I tried to structure it but couldn't find where to put these. -- Rotem Dan 13:13 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Can you please review RK's recent change in knowledge? it seems POV to me: wrote something like: "Knowledge gained by observation was ignored or rejected by many classical religious authorities." while this may be true statement, it is POV, because he accusing "religion" in general at something at stating it as a fact. Some other changes look misleading or even degrading. Thanks (I am sure he has good intent, but Wikipedia has a strict NPOV policy) -- Rotem Dan 14:02 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I think the Oxford Companion to Philosophy is much more self-concsious and responsible and trys to avoid taking a philosophical view (as in any subject in philosophy, there are plenty, and from a NPOV, all should be given equal opportunity of justification), but sometimes not quite easy to understand to non-philosophers (philosophical terms such as "justification", "truth", etc. are often not explained):
See "knowldege": http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=552525&secid=.-&hh=1
Attributing philosophical theories to philosophers and not stating them as facts (the so-called "going meta"), I think, is a basic encyclopedic practice (however many of Sanger's articles do this unintentionally):
See "epistemology": http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=551937
Also, wikipedia's Logical positivism states that positivism failed. That's an opinion, not a fact (I doubt that fron a NPOV that can be said on any philosophical theory, including pataphysics).
See "positivism": http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=553225&secid=.-&hh=1
I guess more work is needed in the philosophy section.. -- Rotem Dan 10:53 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I moved "China" to "People's Republic of China", not blanked it. Taw 22:47 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
What was the reasoning behind your last edit for Tiananmen Square protests of 1989? If anything, what you blanked out was legitimate and what you added in was POV. Please explain at Talk:Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 --Jiang 11:33 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hello Fred. Welcome back! 172 10:12, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Oh, never mind. I see from your list of user contributions that you never left. Well, hello anyway. 172 10:14, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
When RK comes back I want to nominate him for sysop (again) I dont ask for much, but I ask that you support his nomination. Sincerely-戴眩sv 23:21, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "User:Fred Bauder/Archive 1" page.
