User talk:Waitak/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Waitak. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Regarding ==Good job!==

Thanks. I guess that's all you wanted to say?/nothing regarding any of my comments, er or new, comments? [It is speculated that I have Asperger's..... [I would be nice if I could get some help, know any psychologists? Resident psychologists? (Thanks.)]100110100 01:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they aren't accepting new cases until after christmas, which is very bad in my case; this would mean I'd do a whole semester without being diagonosed [I probably have Asperger's].100110100 06:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I don't have a bible, but I'll take it to heart!100110100 06:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a religious relativist, but thank you for the ULR's!100110100 07:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not very sure what you mean, I've done my best to contribute but it seems like I've got myself in a bit of trouble:-S. I'm kinda makeing my own words up; have you heard of cultural relativism? Well, I guess the best words to describe my thoughts on religion is I like to take a hands off approach......:-D.......:P......100110100 07:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Christianity

You mentioned that if you talked about you'd get into trouble, but I think that it's important not only intersting to be opinionated. Have you heard of wikireason?100110100 00:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I haven't. What's it about?

About Christianity... I'm by no means shy about being a Christian, but Wikipedia is really about building an encyclopedia, not about discussing views in general. North Americans, in particular, have adopted this "religion of tolerance" in recent years that basically requires everybody to be "tolerant" of just about everything but Christianity. While that's not something that I agree with at all, it's also my perogative which battles I fight and where. I've chosen not to fight that particular battle here, and keep within the bounds that the community has set. Waitak 02:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I used to have a minister who argued that the more someone claimed to be a capital-C Christian, the easier it would be for Jesus to sue them for defamation. He started off by talking about the "non-denominational Christian" churches who amount to a unorganized denomination, who seek to define their own beliefs as necessary and sufficient and deny all other views as non-Christian, but then he went on to talk about our own denomination's shortcomings, saying that those who stand for nothing will fall for anything. Most of his sermons were like that - first comfort the afflicted, then afflict the comfortable. ClairSamoht 19:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I would like that minister. My response to the capital-C Christian comment would be different, though. I'd point out that God's a lot more interested in us having a godly character than he is in our zeal for doctrinal purity. Don't get me wrong - I believe in having sound doctrine. I just think that most of us have the priorities out of whack.

I liked his sermons for about six months until I realized that all of them were pretty much the same sermon. Sermons aren't always about providing answers to questions, or solutions to problems. Sometimes, the preacher should rant at us, scold us, and make us feel burning shame. Sometimes, the preacher should lift us up, get us enthusiastic about the things we're doing right. The head of the pastor-parish relations committee, at his one-year review, told him that there was too much sameness to his sermons, and it was like "being nibbled to death by Muscovy ducks". The majority of a minister's work takes place outside the pulpit, and they were pleased with that, so they wanted him to stay on, but work on his sermons a bit. He decided he really didn't have the call, though, and left the ministry.

I think that the basic problem is that the modern church has gotten really confused about what a pastor is, exactly. We live in the "age of the pastor", where, basically, the pastor is supposed to be the CEO, the teacher, the shepherd/counselor, and just about everything else. I have some suspicions about where we got that model, and it didn't come from anywhere good. Waitak 02:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It gets my dander up when someone on TV proclaims themselves to be a Christian and then spouts hatefulness, when someone cops a "better than thou" attitude because they are Christian, when someone advertises that they are a Christian business. When I was about to get my bachelor's degree, I learned the the Dean of Students had a Doctor of Divinity degree, and had formerly ministered a church. I paid a visit to his office and thanked him, because he never told anyone he was a Christian, he just *acted* like a Christian should act, and inspired others to do likewise. ClairSamoht 02:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I basically feel the same, though there is room for what an evangelist does. I think that a lot of modern evangelism, again, has little to do with what God meant when He made it one of the fundamental roles in the Body of Christ. What most of us think when we see the word "evangelist" has more to do with soulish manipulation than anything with (good) spiritual origins. Waitak 02:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

For me, the definitive scripture on denominations is I Cor. 1:10-13, though. The principles that I think apply here are:

God loves variety, and there's loads more room for it in the Body of Christ than any of us has explored
Variety doesn't mean compromise, though. There are things that are genuinely non-scriptural, and - to turn around the old maxim - we're meant to keep the baby, but not drink the bathwater.
Division in the Body of Christ is just plain wrong.

I'm familiar with a fair number of non-denominational churches, and I can't say that I've seen the "us four and no more" mentality there as much as other places. There certainly are churches that do practice that sort of exclusivity -- remind me to tell you the story of the Left Foot Baptist Church sometime. Waitak 01:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of the "non-denominational" denomination say they believe every word in the Bible, but they don't know what is in the Bible. You're not supposed to shave your chin; the Amish follow that one, but few other denominations do. You're not supposed to wear clothes of mixed fabrics, but I'm not sure even the Amish follow that one.

I think that perhaps you and I are thinking different "non-denominational" streams. I'm thinking more of folks in the Charismatic movement, rather than folks at the more orthodox end of the spectrum. I think that if we actually had more of the real thing, it'd be a whole different scenario. Waitak 02:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I know too much about the history of the bible to go that route. I know that Athanasius believed Timothy and Titus to be fakes, that Paul was recalled to Jerusalem repeatedly and given the penalty - a lashing one stroke short of death - for blasphemy, and yet he included that matter and other questionable matter, and yet left out the Gospel of James, the infancy Gospel of Thomas, and a number of books that exist today in the Ethiopian bible.

On the other hand, faith by someone as skeptical as this believes, well, that's about as good as faith gets. ClairSamoht 02:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You should check out Wikireason, I recommend Google; I'm not sure about the link, so.....yea. I'd think you might want to express your views. It makes for an interseting time on Wikipedia. If you do, let me know:D 100110100 20:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. You appear to have drawn me into doing just that, right here! Waitak 01:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

O wow, I didn't know this topic has developed so much! You didn't happen to reorganize this section did you? Cause I don't remember putting my comment after so much development!100110100 09:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the conversation above evolved from your first comment, and kind of expanded in place. Waitak 09:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Good thing I didn't bring up Still Speaking or WikiPedia'd have to buy three new servers to hold all the comments it might draw. That "ejector" ad is brilliant. It says exactly what I have, for a long time, wished someone would say. There are a lot of people and a lot of churches who call themselves Christian, and it's a good thing they say it loudly and frequently, because if they didn't, nobody would ever come to that conclusion. ClairSamoht 05:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Template H5N1 case graph

Thanks for your hard work keeping H5N1 up to date. I never got back to you on the sources for veg oil thing (if I remember right), but I know nothing about it and don't know how I could be of service in that area. In looking at Template:H5N1 case graph, and remembering the warning the experts gave concerning an increase in human H5N1 cases this winter, it occurred to me that maybe changing Template:H5N1 case graph so that the months of Dec, Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May were shaded might help make plain the pattern. Cheers. WAS 4.250 06:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

From Global spread of H5N1 (June 30, 2006):

"This week’s issue of the Weekly Epidemiological Record, published online by WHO, sets out results from the first analysis of epidemiological data on all 205 laboratory-confirmed H5N1 cases officially reported to WHO by onset date from December 2003 to 30 April 2006. Data used in the analysis were collected for surveillance purposes. Quality, reliability and format were not consistent across data from different countries. Despite this limitation, several conclusions could be reached.

The number of new countries reporting human cases increased from 4 to 9 after October 2005, following the geographical extension of outbreaks among avian populations.
Half of the cases occurred in people under the age of 20 years; 90% of cases occurred in people under the age of 40 years.
The overall case-fatality rate was 56%. Case fatality was high in all age groups but was highest in persons aged 10 to 39 years.
The case-fatality profile by age group differs from that seen in seasonal influenza, where mortality is highest in the elderly.
The overall case-fatality rate was highest in 2004 (73%), followed by 63% to date in 2006, and 43% in 2005.
Assessment of mortality rates and the time intervals between symptom onset and hospitalization and between symptom onset and death suggests that the illness pattern has not changed substantially during the three years.
Cases have occurred all year round. However, the incidence of human cases peaked, in each of the three years in which cases have occurred, during the period roughly corresponding to winter and spring in the northern hemisphere. If this pattern continues, an upsurge in cases could be anticipated starting in late 2006 or early 2007." Avian influenza – epidemiology of human H5N1 cases reported to WHO WAS 4.250 07:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Peaks roughly correspond "to winter and spring in the northern hemisphere". is their analysis and can be added. WAS 4.250 07:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

First round done. Thoughts? Waitak 13:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the experts include the 2004 flu season so we should too. Maybe include the month of dec 2006 also? I changed the text under the graph. Please feel totally free to alter it. WAS 4.250 20:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Before, I was concerned that we lacked a source indicating that the curves actually meant anything. Now WHO says they are meaningful and can be used to predict (as in predict the weather, not as in predict an an eclipse). So this graph gains immensely in importance. as such, I am in the process of adding the graph to a few articles. I hope you approve. WAS 4.250 20:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Soy article

Thanks for the link. It's an unusually good newspaper story about science/technology; most of them are on the order of "Do not pull turnips. It injures them. Instead, send a small boy up to shake the tree." or "Clams will lie quietly if you play gentle music." (Not my original observations - those are Mark Twain's examples.) Dad was in the solar energy business, and he was very happy in the 1930s when soybeans promised to add nitrogen to the soil at the same time that he got a highly valuable crop. And in the 1960s, prices hit $10/bushel, and it was happy days. But the prices went back to $2.50 and $3.00, and soybeans *toughen* the soil. You have to invest a lot of money in fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides for corn, the seed is expensive, and you often have to replant, so corn is not the greatest crop, and wheat is a two-year crop, so you can go broke that way. Eventually, he came to decide that oats, which takes cheap seed, requires little fertilizer, grows close enough together to crowds out weeds, which can be planted late, and which produce enough stalk material to keep the ground loose, was probably his best crop. Price is pretty stable, too, instead of getting really high or really low. Too bad you can't grow oats after oats after oats, season after season.

Regular rabbit feed is designed to produce fat meaty rabbits in minimal time, so it's great for meat farmers, but for pet rabbits, oat hay is the best food. I've thought about approaching a local farmer to raise pesticide/herbicide free oat hay for me, just an acre or so, because most pet shops don't carry oat hay and can't get it from their suppliers. For $100, you can buy 100 50-pound bales from a farmer, but in pet shops, a 2-pound bag of oat hay - about a 2 month supply - sells for about $5. To me, that sounds like a really good part-time business to get into.

Again, thanks for the link. ClairSamoht 10:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've gradually come to the conclusion that the increasing dependence on a few highly engineered crops in the last 40 years or so is fundamentally a bad thing. I do see the value in the big crops - wheat, corn, rice, soy. But there are other crops that have become - or already were - neglected to the point of being in danger of disappearing altogether. I would love to see much more cultivation of crops like grain amaranth, quinoa and the like. My perhaps naive viewpoint is that security in the food supply will be enhanced by diversity.

Any thoughts on the subject? (And thanks for stopping here to chat!) Waitak 13:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Very few plants, animals, insects, bugs, worms, and the like compete with what's living a mile away. A five-acre field of what you call amaranth (it's pigweed in my book) is just as much monoculture as a 160-acre field of wheat. Dad was fairly small for a full-time farmer, with about 500 acres at peak, but he'd have no more than 200 acres of any one crop due to rotation, and when he bought seed corn, he'd get three different hybrids, because it'd give him different maturity dates and thus spread out the harvest, making it more manageable. Of course, when a farmer does that, he gets varieties that are dissimilar in other ways as well, with some dealing better with drought, some dealing better with thistle, some dealing better with cutworm, some dealing better with smut, etc. Farming isn't just the 2nd-most physically dangerous occupation in the US, it's also financially hazardous, because you can't predict the weather (which influences what weeds and bugs are the greatest threats), you can't predict the market, you can't predict politics which affect world trade. Most farmers try to play it safe when they can. ClairSamoht 14:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I see the point, but I don't see the fundamental difference between tossing in a few acres of a millet - there are plenty to choose from - and hedging your bets by planting different hybrids of the same plant species, in terms of benefiting from diversity. You can call it pigweed if you like, but the stuff is nutritionally amazing. I see the downside for the seed companies, from a certain point of view. But the "general good" that WAS4.250 talks about is also of local benefit, and people aren't entirely selfish all the time. Waitak 14:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Fundamentally a bad thing depends on one's perspective. While I agree with you that it is bad for humanity in general, the specific people making the choices that matter in this regard make the choices that are good for them rather than choices that are good for everone as a whole. Solving the problem of selfish choices is a tough nut to crack. WAS 4.250 13:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't "what's good for humanity" the sum total of what's good for individual humans? Anyone who thinks selfless choices are the best choices needs to go back and read Poe's "Gift of the Magi" a half-dozen times. Selfish choices isn't the problem, but the solution. The problem is "the tragedy of the commons". If commons were privately owned instead of publicly, it would be in the enlightened self-interest (read "selfishness") of the owner to be a good steward. Gordon Gecko was right: greed is good. Take a look at what Michael Milken has done since he got out of prison. Instead of responsible fiduciaries, acting slowly and carefully with the money people have donated, benefactors hungry for cures are spending their own money, and suddenly breakthroughs are happening much more quickly. The reason Warren Buffet gave Bill and Melissa all that money isn't that he thinks they are being careful, but because he thinks they are being Milkanesquely effective. He's selfish; he wants his money to buy results, not bureaucracy. And I've stopped giving donations to bureaucracies like the Red Cross. I may not agree with the Mennonites in matters of religion, but the Mennonite Central Committee proceeds with reckless abandon to change people's lives with no effort to prosetylize, so my donations go to them. I'm greedy. ClairSamoht 14:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I may be greedier, in those terms, but that's a separate conversation yet. Waitak 14:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! =)

Thank you so much for your compliment on my talk page. It means a lot that you apparently think so well of my conflict resolution ability. I do try to keep the peace on Wikipedia, and it's nice to know that someone thinks I'm doing a good job!!! Thank you so much for your kind words. Please let me know if you need anything, and have a great day! :) Srose (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

References

re Talk:Benier_Koranache

Esperanto speakers

Regarding ==Artisan==

Oh, did you redo my work cause of my changes to the article? ((You noticed?)) Well, the reason I added those new words was because I found them in my textbook, not because I made them up. When I changed the sentence, it was still NPOV; I didn't say that it should be called something else. Wasn't more factually accurate saying that "...craftsman is the term for a male artisan..."?100110100 00:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you check out the definition,, you'll see that craftsman is *already* gender-neutral, as are a number of other words ending in man, such as "woman". The original difference between an artisan and a craftsman is that an artisan practices an art (which implies creativity), and a craftsman practices a craft (which implies manual dexterity). A physician is an artisan, for instance, while an osteopathic surgeon is a craftsman. A great sculptor is both. (BTW, nice seeing you, 0x234). ClairSamoht 00:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the reply. Nice seeing you to. Is this account your sock puppet?100110100 07:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've checked out the definition, but I don't see where it says that 'craftsman' is genderneutral.100110100 07:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Google comes up with five definitions for craftsman. It says a craftsman is a professional, a creator, a skilled worker, a line of tools sold by Sears, or an architectural style (I suspect named for the kit houses that Sears sold in the early 20th century.) Unless you think a woman cannot be a professional, cannot be a creator, cannot be skilled, or cannot be a worker, it's a gender-neutral term. ClairSamoht 14:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a funny question! No, ClairSamoht and Waitak are two very different people who happen to share a few common interests. Waitak 07:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

O haha. Clair has replied for you from some of my comments........ haha.100110100 07:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You'd have to ask Clair, but I'm pretty that our talk pages are in each other's watchlists. Besides, since we live in different hemispheres, we're usually asleep at different times, so that works out pretty well. Good to hear from you. Waitak 07:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes thank you, to you too. Sorry I didn't repond till now, I had been checking my talk page many times, but I was just 07:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC), when I checked your talk page to see if you responded here. Thanks for the response by the way! And thank you for all your time, your compliments/\encouragement\, & thank you for your long replies:-D I like them!:-D100110100 09:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice this before. I use popups, and when an article shows up in my watchlist, I usually just hover over the diff link, so I get the last change. If there are two posts between the times I check, I only notice the last one. And I just realized you are NOT on my watchlist. But you are, now.

If Waitak and I sleep at different times, I feel sorry for him, because my sleep patterns are *very* irregular. I'm as likely to be awake at 3 AM as at 3 PM. Yesterday, I got up at 2 PM. Today, I got up at 7 AM. Tuesday, I was just getting to bed at 6:30 AM, and last night, I zonked out at 8 PM. They say that irregular sleep patterns lead to health problems, but in my case, it's the other way around. I don't know exactly where Waitak lives; somewhere in Asia, I suspect. I'm in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, United States of America and State of Polynesia, Western Hemisphere, Northern Hemisphere, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Region 3, Snoot's Back Pocket. (Trying not to be too us-centric....) ClairSamoht 14:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad it's been encouraging! Thanks for responding. Waitak 09:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: Help formatting infobox

Interesting word

I like it, too. Did you look it up? It comes from the Latin word spargere, meaning to scatter. In chemical engineering classes, it was mostly used to describe spraying a liquid on a solid. Build a tower, fill it full of saddle-shaped hunks (they don't pack very well) and apray a liquid at the top of the tower, allowing it to trickle down. You'll have lots of contact between the liquid and the saddles, and if the saddles are a catalyst, your sparging tower will induce a reaction. Generally works a lot better than tossing everything in a vat, and trying to keep the catalyst in suspension by stirring a lot. They "lauter" beer, a sparging process in which case the mash is the solid, and the point of spraying it is to remove excess sugars from the mash.

Hydrogen under pressure is potentially hazardous, so sparging gives the oil a lot of agitation without introducing any extra mechnical parts and extra seals that can fail, and it's pretty much "for free" since you have to introduce the hydrogen anyhow.

Late in the refining process for soy oil, they sparge the oil at high temperature and vacuum (so as to keep the oil from oxidizing) with water, which immediately turns to steam. The steam sparging removes any water-soluble impurities which can give the oil a flavor, and it even fractionates the oil a little. The condensate for that process is where they get vitamin E, but it's also where agrichemical poisons like Aldrin and Dieldrin show up, which should blow the mind of anyone who thinks "natural" vitamins are automatically safe. If they screw up, swallowing that poison-laced vitamin E will kill your weeds. ::grin:: ClairSamoht 18:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Hey, if I make it to your home stomping grounds someday, will you give me a tour of a soy processing factory? I'm guessing that I went to school about 100 miles WSW of you, if you live where I think you might. Never did learn how to make a boiler, though. :-) Waitak 02:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand why you did it; some fights aren't worth fighting. I merged all the other articles to make one big one, although it wasn't a *true* merge. I didn't eliminate the other articles. When I get time, or when I get sufficiently annoyed (and given the way things are going in my life lately, that could happen at any moment), I will go through the article and add tons of footnotes so it's properly cited. There are lots of references listed, but unless you can see where each statement comes from, it's hard to argue that it's verifiable, not original research. And unfortunately, a lot of the content I added, I may have trouble finding citations for. I haven't worked in F&O research for a quarter century, and between divorce, fire, and a number of other personal tragedies, including moving (Ben Franklin said "Two removals equals one fire"), most anything I had in my personal library back then is *gone*.

Back in the 1970s, there was a guy who sold books through the mail. He advertised "Did your wife run off with your computer manuals, and you miss them dearly?" At one point, I had about 20,000 books (admittedly many of them paperbacks) and of those 20,000, less than 100 survive. Maybe less than 10. And not a week goes by that I don't want to access one of those books. If there are no books in heaven, hell will suit me just fine. ClairSamoht 14:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but you'd probably be stuck reading stuff like this. :-) I'll be interested to see what the reaction is to the merge. Might be a good solution, or it might be otherwise entertaining. 8-o Regarding refs, I'd be willing to help dot i's and cross t's for anything that Google knows about, modulo normal disclaimers on time availability. Waitak 14:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That "What links here" link on each page could be a source of grief for you. I recommend you edit or delete that link. Remember when Mimi Rogers divorced this guy, saying that he slept on the couch to avoid having sex, and then he started jumping up and down on couches when found himself a girlfriend who was already pregnant by someone else? He's likely to come knocking on your door and go jumping up and down on YOUR couch, complaining that you're dissing his ~~con-game~~ religion. I have no trouble believing that God is still speaking but when the cults of ignorance speak, be they sunni, shiite, or the Reverend Billy Joe Jim Bob who believes every word of a Bible he's never read, I suspect the voice is that of Mephistopheles. (I met Mephistopheles once. In fact, more than once. She used to be my mother-in-law. Prior to that, I thought "pure evil" was an oxymoron, but it's definitely not....) ClairSamoht 20:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Where's Clair?

Hhhhmmmm, Clair's gone for some time? Have you heard from him any? It's like/seems like he's ~~not~~ away.........eh?100110100 03:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I usually check user contributions to find out if somebody's active. You can do that from the user's page or talk page. Not sure what Clair's up to, but I know that balancing involvement at WP with other parts of life is a little tricky for a lot of us... In any case, I wouldn't worry about it! Waitak 03:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's nice to be missed.

I just received a "Rusty Plow" on Thursday for reverting vandalism on the Amish page, and on Thursday night, finished co-developed Template:US Demographics which recognizes which of the 50 states it's on, and shows an incredible amount of detail on race/ethnic information from the 2000 and 2005 census.

I've been working hard on the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania pages. I've been adding citations left and right to articles, and annoying the hell out of people by adding Template:unsourced and Template:PantsOnFire additions to their favorite pages of Wikipedia:Original Research. (Oh, did I mention? I created Template:PantsOnFire so I could add it to pages full of crap, and if nobody adds a citation within a week or two, I can delete the bilge without anyone complaining. At least, that's the theory.

The **Donut Star** Award. The torus shape of a donut is not a five-sided or six-sided star, but a star of infinite points. This award is given for innumerable efforts over an extended period to achieve great things.

Seems like I had a watchlist of just about 150 pages a month ago, and it's at 290 now.

And I've had some fun learning about new topics as I wrote/rewrote topics. I did Turkey Hill on Thursday. Other recent articles are Cresap's War and Waffle House. And I've created a lot of stubs that I'm not particularly proud of, but maybe that will inspire someone to adopt them and turn them into decent articles.

As much as you've been working on these Vegetable Oil pieces, someone ought to give you an award. What is a greater icon for vegetable oil than donuts?

I thought about using ~~this~~ a different image but I couldn't get copyright clearance, and anyway, I guess it would be more proper to use this less delightful one. Congratulations, Waitak, on being the very first Donut Star Award recipient in the history of Wikipedia! ClairSamoht 04:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm honored! Thank you! And thank you for your partnership and friendship in the course of making all of those many edits on topics veggie-oil-related and otherwise. Waitak 04:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks Waitak for the lovely message are you Clair's alter ego or something. Go to his talk page he is known to be a vandal of many pages. Just ask the Science apologist. So you're comments to me are ill-founded and rather misplaced.74.93.44.78 13:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Clairsmuhut74.93.44.78 13:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional nice message. No it's not meant as a personal attack, but I am amused by people like you and Clair you think that their opinion over rides the true facts of real entries. I can only hope that you do not walk in our dearly departed friends footsteps. I for one am NOT sorry to see him go. Sorry but my opinion is just as valid as yours and everyone elses and I guess we don't agree on what Mr. Smut as done or has not done for this page. However, it does strike me as kind of strange that after several of us lodged complaints about his vandalism he is leaving. —preceding unsigned comment by 74.93.44.78 (talk • contribs)

Sabbath Economy

Carrot

User:4492tues12

Broken Link

Aw, thanks

re: ==Wow!== Waitak 07:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC) on User talk:100110100

Global spread of H5N1

With regard to cleaning up references in Global spread of H5N1 - feel free to delete/summarize/reorganize as you go. I've thought of breaking off part of it as one or two seperate articles (H5N1 in 2005 ?) but it didn't feel right. My main problem is that since this is ongoing, no one knows what part of the history is important and what part isn't important ... yet. WAS 4.250 05:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that Global spread of H5N1 should be moving away from bullet points and towards a more integrated paragraph style (while 2004, 2005 and 2006 are good as they are mostly maybe). Except, I'm not a good enough writer to pull it off as a general rule. What do you think about moving away from bullet points? WAS 4.250 17:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Good work on Global spread of H5N1 in 2006. Your dedication to proper citation is inspiring. WAS 4.250 18:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I discovered a number of things in the process that I've been wondering how to pass on...

There are a number of sites that shouldn't be used, because the links don't stay put. These include Alertnet, SwissInfo, and Yahoo News, among others.
There are a few key sites that we tend to lean on.

The WHO site, of course, for human cases. I eventually developed a citation style for disease outbreak: avian influenza citations that others might find useful.
CIDRAP
OIE for cases in animals
Bird Life is useful for avian cases

I'd also like to request that others use the appropriate cite template, and include a date and accessdate field. Makes it a lot easier to know as of when the link was current.

Thanks again for the feedback. Waitak 02:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I used the New York Times as a source for a critical evaluation of an event concerning the Tokyo Stock Exchange and later was challenged about it and discovered the article was converted to a pay only status. I don't know what we should do about on line sources. WAS 4.250 05:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, take a look at the NYT citation that I just reformatted for Global spread of H5N1. There are (hopefully rare) citations where we lose access to an article, or it disappears behind a subscription, but the article remains valid, so I usually either remove the url field, or add a note describing what you have to do to get access in these cases. After all, if the article exists at all then the fact that it's used as a source for is still verifiable. There's no requirement that the fact be googlable, after all. Folks like you and me still remember actually going to libraries and pulling journals off shelves. :-)

As an aside, this is one of the reasons that I'm such a stickler for proper citations. If all you've got is , then there's nothing to do but delete the citation if access disappears (or figure out from the text what it was supposed to be about, and hunt for an alternative). If you've cited it properly, though, you can recover, even if it means deleting the url field from the cite template call. Waitak 06:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It is all due to you. Once upon a time, I added sources with just "[]" around them. Then I added a label; then the article name and publication date; and now its come to this. Where will it all end! Ohhhhh, the humanity.... WAS 4.250 15:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Pine nut oil

Clair's gone

re: ==You are hereby awarded The Resilient Barnstar== by Waitak 02:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC) on User talk:100110100

Adding Content

Ref: South African Shop

Chiense Dialicest

Thank you - Going to give it a shot

Image:H5n1 spread (with regression).png

Trying to juggle too many things at once?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of plants used as medicine‎

List of vegetable oils

Hi Waitak,

I am hoping to get List of vegetable oils up on the main page by way of Today's featured list. My first nomination failed because of the "derelict state of the notes section" on the article. If you would aid me in getting this list back up to par so that a second TFL nomination can pass, I would greatly appreciate it.

Neelix (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to help. Could you point me to the discussion, so I can get a better idea of what people are looking for? Waitak (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Waitak,

The short discussion took place here: . If we clean up the sourcing for the article, that should be sufficient in order to resubmit the article to WP:TFLS. Then we can respond to further comments there when they are made. I'm so glad you're interested in collaborating with me on this!

Neelix (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I really do hate to do this, but I noticed this thread, had a look, and that sourcing is appalling, and just a few checks found one case not backed by the source. Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of vegetable oils/archive1. 86.** IP (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It would have been a lot more friendly of you to mention it to me to give me a chance to fix it before forcing the issue by starting a delisting process. You could have just added your comments to the discussion above and, if you didn't get a response there, the article talk pages. Being friendly or cooperative doesn't seem to form a significant part of how you work, though, does it? If you were actively trying to antagonize me, I'm not sure how you'd go about it any differently. Let me be clear: I do want the articles that I contribute to to be the best they can. I'm genuinely grateful to you for pointing out their weaknesses. I've spent a huge amount of time trying to make List of plants used in herbalism better, and I have you to thank for a lot of the impetus to do that. I've also started fixing List of vegetable oils as a result of this discussion, and expect that it will be a much stronger article as a result. I hadn't planned on being forced to do it so quickly, but I'll play what I'm dealt. The point is this: The way that you have gone about all of these interactions is unconscionable. The name-calling and nastiness in WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and AfD aren't appropriate anywhere, and in Wikipedia in particular.

While I'm here, would you please stop systematically deleting Wikipedia links to articles that you don't like? That's a particularly dishonorable way of forcing an outcome of a debate. Waitak (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Tomato seed oil

Um, Waitak, oil, by definition, doesn't contain protein, and the source isn't about oil, but meal. You might want to review the definition of oil. 86.** IP (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm most of the way through with the first column of refs. I'll have a look at that next. Waitak (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it, but because I didn't see evidence it existed in the source's abstract, and I presumed you misread. It might exist, of course. By the way, please don't do this yet, but I presume that you're going to get this to FL, whether sooner or later[*]; once everything's been checked and approved, you'll have some notes on a lot of red-linked oils. I'd suggest making redirects, and adding sections on the oils to the plant pages. But don't do that yet; wait on any improvements that come out. =) 86.** IP (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Footnote: [*] I'm slightly in favour of delist in the short term, but only because I think the more detailed review of WP:FLC would help make it that extra bit better, and shouldn't take much more time.

How about, instead, withdrawing the delist request, but going for a targeted WP:RFC once the source cleanup's done? I'd love for the article to have a thorough review from people who are interested in the topic. Thereafter, Neelix can go ahead with his WP:Today's featured list nomination, and we'll get another review that way? Doing this with a knife at my throat kinda takes the fun right out of it. Waitak (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd rather keep the Featured List people in on this. They're the experts with lists, after all, and closing the discussion would cut them out. I will, however, endorse a request to not close until the revised list can be considered. =) 86.** IP (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

They are, but they're going to have a crack at it as soon as the TFL nomination is initiated. Don't forget, as well, that this list has already gone three rounds with that community (initial FL, first unsuccessful delist request, and recent unsuccessful TFL nomination). Adding a fifth doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Waitak (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I understand it, the FL process was really permissive up until a year or two ago, when the standards raised a lot, so the ones before this year should probably be ignored.

By the way, I'm sorry we've had some nasty fights on the other list. The sourcing issues needed dealt with, but could've gone a lot better; I was just worried because it can be hard to salvage an article if you don't keep high standards from the start. I think the list has a long way to go, but, at the same time, I'm probably not presenting the problems clearly enough. 86.** IP (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty good at accepting apologies and moving on, as it turns out. Waitak (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

=) Will talk to you about it tomorrow? Let's work on this one for now. 86.** IP (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Deal. (Although I'm going to have to get to my non-WP tasks for the day eventually.) Waitak (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Would it help if I went through and tagged any sources that were unambiguously commercial or otherwise problematic? Some might be worth debating, but I think that most of the bad sources in that article are unambiguously so, it's just that you need to poke around the sites a bit to check. Could probably do it in an hour or two. Hmm. I could label marketing sources (definitely bad) with ^{[marketing material?]}; almost certainly unreliable sources with ^{[unreliable source?]}, and questionable ones/ones that'd need digging into with ^{[verification needed]}, so that you get a judgement. =) 86.** IP (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, that would be very helpful. That would let me focus on re-sourcing, rather than (or in addition to, probably) hunting for problems. Waitak (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've done another quick pass of tagging. I'd prefer to leave the tag template calls inside the ref tag to make them easier to spot. Feel free to add others if there are any. So far, there are eight or nine I think. Waitak (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Didn't notice the edits up there. Sure, that would be wonderful. That'd help a lot in knowing how to deal with them. Waitak (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Going through. Please don't edit for a bit. Ignore anything with ^{[verification needed]} for now - some of them are probably okay, it's more that they should be briefly discussed. 86.** IP (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Good news and bad news - LOTS of Verify source tags so far, but I suspect most of them will be alright in the end, we just need to run them by the Reliable source noticeboard to make sure they're alright. I thought it better to mark them than to have to go over it again. 86.** IP (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, "lots" in the sense of "nine"... I need to attend to some other things for the next few hours, but I'll spend some more time on this this evening (I'm in the US). Hopefully I'll be able to knock over what we've marked and forward whatever's left, if anything, to the RS/N. It looks to me like this ought to be in pretty good shape within about the next 24 hours. Thanks again for the help. Waitak (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I only got as far as "Oils from melon and gourd seeds" - I'm afraid I hadn't yet hit save at that point; you'll see what I mean if you look again at the first thirty sources. BUT, as I said, a lot of these just need checked to get an all-clear, there's only a few unambiguous problems. 86.** IP (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Notes:

The "dated info" on the cashew nut is because the source is from 1991, so there might well be an update on the tentative claims made.
Coconut-info.com ...I don't think this is a reliable source. It looks self-published, and I can't find any information to show it's academically respected. Has 1990s web design, and lacks any indications its affiliated with anything notable or academically respectable. Also (and bear with me a moment, as it's going to sound horrible at first) The Christian message on the front page (while having nothing wrong with it) seems a bit too personal and specific for an organisational website otherwise on a completely different topic, so I think this is one person, or possibly a small group. There's nothing WRONG with the sentiment, of course it's just that it makes the website seem a lot more personal. - and only reason I'm mentioning it at all is because these sort of off-topic personal messages are a useful sign that something might be self-published, and should be looked into before using it on Wikipedia. 86.** IP (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I've removed some minor info I couldn't find in the sources; I don't think it's particularly important material. If you do swap sources, please double check all material is still present and ^{[citation needed]} tag or delete what isn't; it would be annoying to have to check this list twice. =)
The "dubious" tag is being abused a bit - I needed a tag to ask you to confirm material is in the source. (if you have a copy. If not, can you switch to another source (preferably FAO or one of the University sites), if possible?) 86.** IP (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all the help. I'll start in on it this evening. I expect it'll take a day or two to get all the way through, but I think we'll have a really strong article once that's done. Waitak (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Note it'll probably take me at least another three days to work through the remaining references (factoring in I'm unavailable tomorrow), then, once we know the sources are good, I should probably go through and check facts against them, to make sure there's no issues.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but don't try to rush this too much. =) 86.** IP (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I don't want it to lose featured list status while I'm working on it. Getting it through in the first place was a lot of work. Waitak (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Were you involved? Oh, god, sorry, I just presumed you were helping another editor with it. 86.** IP (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I wrote the article, and submitted the FL request. My basic reason for being a WP editor is this: For independent reasons, I do a ton of research into all sorts of things. At one point, I wanted to know what all of the vegetable oils were, so I spent months looking and noting what I found. I decided to try WP as the place that I record what I learn. The thought is, that way I can share what I find, and maybe others will be able to benefit, too. The costs are:

1) I have no subsequent control over it, and

2) I receive no credit for what I contribute

I decided that I didn't mind, and wrote List of vegetable oils as an experiment to see how it worked out. It more or less did. Others who know a lot more that I do got involved, and corrected things that I'd missed, and the article ended up much stronger than what it would have been if I were the only one working on it. I found that I didn't really care about ownership or credit. (That's one reason why, when an editor mentioned "ownership problems" at the other list we've been working on, my response was a virtual shrug.) The thing that turned out to be the most gratifying was when other editors took ownership and started using what I'd done as a framework to contribute what they learned. I've continued on WP since. I check my watchlist pretty regularly, to make sure that articles that I care about don't get spammed or diluted. For a while there, it seems that every other day I was removing "I love Cheerios!" from the Cereal page (which is emphatically not about breakfast cereals). So, yeah, I've invested quite a bit in the article. Waitak (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, it's a quite good bit of research, and anywhere but Wikipedia (and, specifically, a featured list) the sources'd have been good enough, but for a featured list, we need a bit better. =) 86.** IP (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The under construction tag is a good idea. Waitak (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong meetup 58

Delisting

List of culinary fruits

List of vegetable oils

Barnstar

The pizza thing

List of culinary nuts

I think what you've done with the vegetable oils list can serve as a reasonable model for this list, and I wouldn't advise keeping this list much simpler than that one in terms of style. You don't want a situation where someone says the list isn't at the level of the vegetable oils list, since that's the most obvious comparison. The big question in my mind is whether someone will ask to have the list in table form. You'll need to make a decision on the list's style and be prepared to justify it at FLC. I think the vegetable oils style works, but I'm only one reviewer/director. If you're uncertain, you could always go to peer review and ask for others' opinions on the subject. However, I encourage you strongly to try bringing the culinary nuts list to FL. The vegetable oils list is the only current food and drink FL, and that portion of WP:FL is rather deserted. It would be great to fill it up a little! Giants2008 (Talk) 02:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Patrolling is for new articles, not things like FLC; as far as I'm aware they aren't subject to new pages patrol. As long as the page is showing up at FLC, it should be visible enough for potential reviewers to be aware of the nomination's existence. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for this-- two thoughts to consider. How about Butternut (tree)?? And consider repeating the hazelnut comment ("Several other species are edible, but not commercially cultivated to any significant extent.") under hickories? Or does 'edible' imply 'palatable' here? Araucana (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added an entry for butternut. I'll hunt for a list of some of the other hickory species, and add that as well if I can find it. Waitak (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I finally figured out one of my concerns: walnuts and hickories ARE TRUE nuts, not drupes, according to my Plant Taxonomy textbook (Porter, albeit 1967). They will need to be moved, and we probably need to rewrite the definitions at the beginning for clarification. I need to run now, but will get back to you or attempt an edit later today. Also, check on Kola-- that picture makes it look wrong for "true nut" definition. See in the meantime, it might be helpful. Thanks for all your patience with this article, Waitak! Araucana (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's worse than I thought, and I'm dropping my objection; drupe does seem to be widely used for walnuts these days. I think (with Porter) that it hinges on whether the outer husk is ovary wall or hypanthium. Took the question up with botanist friends, one of whom found a good historical review that demonstrates the confusion but fails to resolve the botanical question. I posted the link and selected quotes in User:Araucana/sandbox so as not to add too much garbage here if you want to take a look. Keep up the good work!! Araucana (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In the area? You're invited to
Hong Kong Meetup # 58

	Date: October 21
	Time: 7PM
	Place: Think Cafe, Unit B, 19/F, Kyoto Plaza, 491-499 Lockhart Road, Causeway Bay
prev: Meetup 57 - next: Meetup 59

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For saving List of plants used as medicine, after my nomination for deletion. Great job! Bearian (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

		The Food and Drink Barnstar
		For your impressive overhaul of List of vegetable oils and for your persistent willingness to employ your learning for the betterment of the project, I award you this barnstar. Wikipedia needs more academics to invest in this world knowledge base, as you are doing. Neelix (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Related Articles