User talk:Ingolfson

Volapük

Hi Ingolfson. I found your name via another Inclusionist from the m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and thought that you might agree that this proposal: m:Proposals for closing projects/Radical cleanup of Volapük Wikipedia, with its delete-all-stubs policy, is not the best for the Volapük Wikipedia. In case you agree, you could help us fight it with your vote. Thanks in advance! --Smeira 22:30, 5 jan 2008.

Auckland Central

hey...I found you through the Auckland CBD page, and I was wondering, can you take a couple of minutes on the Auckland Central (NZ electorate) article and write a paragraph about the social makeup and characteristics of the place? That would be mighty useful and greatly appreciated. Cheers. Rocklaw (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rocklaw, I will consider it, though I am not a born-and-bred Aucklander - however, I was away (or otherwise busy) during much of December/January and I'm still trying to catch up with my own watchlist backlog and other associated Wikitasks, so it doesn't look like I'd get around to working on new stuff like that soon. Maybe you could ask at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board to find others to help? Ingolfson (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Esfahan

Dear Ingolson, I am dumbfounded to see that you have felt necessary to comment on my continuing editing on Wikipedia. With all due respect, what I do on Wikipedia is entirely my own business. Please note that by this remark I do not wish to be disrespectful towards you, but to demonstrate the intrusive behaviour of some Wikipedians which ultimately led to my departure (or semi-departure) from Wikipedia. Before going into the subject matter of your message, for good order I should like to point out that my recent edits have all been minor, if you consider the fact that I had planned to write biographies for all major and minor figures of the Constitutional Revolution of Iran (1904-1911) — I was about to type my well-researched biography of Ali-Akbar Dehkhoda (at present the worst biographical entry of Wikipedia is his, considering that he was a man of letters) when I suddenly decided that I no longer felt at home in Wikipedia; my Wikipedia entry on Bibi Khatoon Astarabadi has remained incomplete and sketchy while only last week I finally received some details that I had asked for from professor Afsaneh Najmabadi, the only scholar in the world who knows both the character and the social conditions of Bibi Khatoon in minute detail. This was just a side project of mine, as I am not an historian, but a professional scientist. My long-term plan was to rewrite a host of entries on subjects related to theoretical condensed-matter physics. Some examples may be clarifying: the explanations of superconductivity and the BCS theory on Wikipedia are essentially incorrect — the extant Wikipedia explanations consist of platitudes that are widely parroted in "popular" books and are sufficiently inaccurate to warrant failing of a student of physics if this student wrote such inaccurate accounts in his/her exam papers (you cannot imagine the height of my frustration to see such utter nonsense being paraded as knowledge in Wikipedia). The host of accounts on the Hubbard model, strongly-correlated systems, Fermi-liquid theory, ..., Fermi surface, etc. contain fundamental errors and misconceptions. I had originally planned to rectify all these shortcomings, but that was not to be. I do not wish to be disrespectful, but I am utterly frustrated by the school-teacherly attitude of fellow Wikipedians. Never during my active time in Wikipedia have I received a message of a scholarly nature from a fellow Wikipedian; only messages on "rules" ("source of photograph missing!", and the like). This is a terrible commentary on our contemporary culture, as we no longer seem capable of engaging in discussions on matters that really matter, only on issues which are utterly petty and irrelevant.

Now as for my link to flickr, I would have been sympathetic with your point of view if the problem that you mentioned were endemic to Esfahan. You have chosen to throw a rule book into my face, while to my best judgement application of the rules to which you refer is utterly meaningless as regards in particular Esfahan. I genuinely wonder what might be the reason that might have inspired you to write a long message to me on the merits of not linking to flickr — I am simply astonished and feel unable to comprehend you in the slightest (that is, not on the level that really matters); with all due respect, your reasoning seems perfectly to exemplify the peculiar attitude of those about whom I bitterly complain in the text on my home page. May I therefore request you to be kind enough and leave me and Esfahan alone? It is not really relevant, but I trace my ancestry to the entire region surrounding Esfahan, and Shiraz, so that I have some strong emotional bond with the place; my judgement of the specific flickr photographs of the place has its root in my sense of the place through my genes, as it were. Thank you, and please forgive me if I may appear immodest to you; I have always rebelled against placing soulless rules above people (and that is why I sincerely believe that the UK, where common sense reigns supreme, is the best place in the entire world to live in). --BF 10:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer tells me a lot about you. You think that rules do not matter when YOU consider them wrong, and you think that a friendly comment (in which I try to explain why the rules have a reason) is attacking you ("be kind enough and leave ME and Esfahan alone?"). Emphasis mine. You also wonder why I would spent the time on writing the comment in the first place (it is because you accused me of behaving like a robot), and then turn around and write a much LONGER whinge where you head off into superconductivity, how the UK is a great country and whatnot, while also telling me about how your own researcher's mind cannot stand being dragged down from its lofty heights from where, if it was only allowed, it would fix all of Wikipedia's problems. How pretentious. Ingolfson (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I may not care highly enough about removing the link again right now, unless more such links creep in again like they did in the past (because as far as I can tell, they ARE good photos). But Esfahan (i.e. the article) will NOT be 'left alone'. Wikipedia is not your project, as you so clearly point out. Ingolfson (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And finally - you have Wikipedia all wrong, which may be why you hate it - Wikipedia is NOT a research platform. It is a platform for the COLLECTING and SUMMARIZING of other people's works. We are not scholars. We are librarians. As simple and as prosaic as that. Scholars need independence, and personal points of view, or they'd be pretty crappy. A neutral (or as close as we can get) collector of research cannot have the same kind of independence. Ingolfson (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me. The reference to "robot" had bearing on the fact that earlier one of my links had been removed and further enquiry showed that the editor in charge had not even attempted to check the link before removing it; in response to my protest, s/he responded that "oh well, previously similar links had been directed to internet sites selling, for instance, viagra." When requesting this editor to restore my edit, s/he rudely declined my very polite request and told me that if I found the link sufficiently important surely I would consider it worthwhile to type the address again (I am absolutely not exaggerating). The mere fact that seeing the name "flickr" might have prompted you to remove the link, suggested to me that you might not have cared to check the particular link (and hence the word "robot"). I apologise for the offence that I have caused. As for what my message tells about me, you are perfectly entitled to draw whatever conclusion that you wish about my character from my text and I have no objection if you have reason to believe that I were pretentious. As for "leave me and Esfahan alone", for a period extending over six months thrice I received messages that a particular photograph of a living person, uploaded by me, was to be removed and thrice I responded that this particular photograph had been expressedly given to me by the person with the full knowledge that it would be uploaded to Wikipedia; thrice I gave the editors in charge the e-mail address of the person in question for verifying my statement. The photograph was finally removed, thus effectively accusing me that I must have been untruthful in my statements (this is specifically surprising because the earlier two times the editors themselves had removed the elimination tags on the photograph at issue, suggesting that they must have been satisfied with my statements). When you tell me of your "friendly comment", you remind me of my previous experience: when I told the last of the latter three editors that in the event of removing the photograph I would leave Wikipedia, s/he also came with a "friendly comment" instructing me of the merits of his plan to remove the above-mentioned photograph (that it was all because of "keeping Wikipedia free"). "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." To my best judgement, there was nothing wrong with that photograph and I was not infringing any rules, whether Wikipedia rules or copy-right rules elsewhere; I had given the source, the contact address, etc. I have never claimed that I stood above rules, but rules should be applied judiciously, otherwise we end up with vigilantism. As for wondering why you would spend your time to explain to me about the merits of not linking to flickr, I cannot look into your heart and am prepared to accept that I may have been incorrect in my judgement. I can only tell that the previous editor also wrote to me a long message on the merits of removing the above-mentioned photograph (as though I were ignorant of rules concerning copyrights). I know, incidentally, what Wikipedia is about and am in no need of instruction (what is wrong with you folks, who seem unable to resist the urge of preaching others about what they must know?). --BF 12:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps) I never claimed that I would correct all errors in Wikipedia; I explicitly gave the names of the entries that I would improve. You would oblige me if you gave the Wikipedia entry on, for instance, the BCS theory to an expert and asked her or him to mark it as an essay. If you were to ask me (and I have taught advanced course on the subject matter), I would give it 1 out of 10, and that for the effort. Now you may consider my statement as pretentious, but I am here talking about an objective fact — the BCS theory is already half a century old (this should also convince you that I was not talking about a cutting-edge issue in science or a research material) and given the fact that now-a-days school children regularly consult Wikipedia, you will realise that what I wrote was not out of any personal sense of knowing better, but out of a sense of responsibility towards many young souls whose fresh minds will be contaminated by the nonsense in the present Wikipedia entry on BCS. I raised this issue with the previous editor, but he chose to find a photograph more important than I correcting, amongst other things, the entry on the BCS theory. He told me that he saw it as his duty to "keep Wikipedia free". This, I believe, is vigilantism, pure and simple. --BF 13:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on one thing - the fact that Wikipedia, a non-commercial project, needs to spend so much time making sure that it does not violate copyright, is a comment on our society, where corporate copyright is king. But Wikipedia CANNOT afford to be constantly involved in lawsuits, whether from companies protecting their products or from individuals who claim we are libelling them or putting up photos of them without permission. Wikipedia NEEDS to be agressive in preventing copyright violations, because that is one of the few defenses we have in a court of law (showing that we are serious about it). We cannot simply trust people about copyright ("I've been told its okay to put it on Wikipedia"), we need to follow the rules, which amongst other things, explain how to handle images to which you don't hold the copyright. Platitudes like "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" are, in my mind, ridiculous in this context - Wikipedia is a voluntary project that you can very well do without (use google or a paper encyclopedia instead if you hate it) - so don't tell me anything we do here has to lead you to "Hell". "Keeping Wikipedia free" is important and is NOT vigilantism, if for no other reason because vigilantism is behaviour OUTSIDE the rules.

Regarding your complaints about factual inaccuracies of some articles: FIX them. Don't complain about them. Either say "I'm done with Wikipedia!" and stick with it, or get yourself some textbooks, scientific papers, news articles, whatever, and rewrite the articles. If your changes aren't mainstream science yet, you will have to produce a couple sentences like "unlike most scientists, some [reference 1], [reference 2], consider that this theory ignores A, B and C and should be discarded in favour of the XYZ theory, which however, is still considered very sceptically by many scientists." In sum, put up or shut up - you are wasting your time telling me about it, when you could be fixing it. Ingolfson (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bouncer (doorman)

Good job. I'd imagine this article will pass GA with ease. The only section I'm uncertain about is the list of names. Although I'm already positive that most of those people are or were indeed bouncers at some point in their lives, I know this won't be enough for the administrators. I'm going to see if maybe I can find some references for that list. As far as taking things personally goes, I've got no problem with the review process. I do have a problem with the AfD process, though. Okay, I'm going to see what I can do about references for those names. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 00:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's done. Couldn't find a reliable reference for Glenn Ross, though. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 01:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was never a fan of the name list anyway - I have previously weeded it out quite strongly, though I admit I only went as far as checking whether the main article notes them having been buncers. That kicked out most already... Ingolfson (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for cites for California's lack of training, but having no luck. I'm gonna try and find something regarding bouncers carrying weapons. I know this is true, I was offered an extendable baton by my company whilst in the profession, but it'll need a cite. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 02:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]