User talk:Yopienso: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:23, 9 October 2011

Welcome!

Hello, Yopienso, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Este es el formato normal de bienvenida que está en inglés y es de mucha ayuda cuando uno recién comienza a conocer Wikipedia.
Muchas gracias por escribir tus comentarios en el discussion page antes de editar el artículo. Aunque en principio en Wikipedia se permite editar con libertad, cuando no se está seguro es mejor discutir primero en el discussion(talk) page del artículo. De nuevo bienvenida (o bienvenido, no se jeje) Rosa 19:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk: Yopienso/Archive 1

User talk:Yopienso/Archive 2

Sandbox

Sandbox2

Intelligent Design

Thank you for your message on my talk page.

Sorry that I was chiding, but I honestly thought your intentions were to turn this article into one on "intelligent design" in general, and not only ID.However, after reading your response to Dave ont he talk page, I see that we are indeed on the same page, just looking at it from very different perspectives.

I am a scientist (microbiologist), so I am very clear about the scientific issues involved, both in ID and in the Creation Science that preceeded it. I also have a a pretty solid background in the history of religion, though that is highly concentrated on the history of the Roman Catholic Church up until the Reformation. I am somewhat familiar with the evolution of American Protestantism after the second great awakening, though.

We also seem to be starting at different ends of the string. I'm starting with modern ID, and working my way back, whereas you seem to be starting with Enlightenment era Christianity and working your way forward. And that's where I think our main differences lie.

When I start with modern ID and go back, I see that it is based on the Creation Science of the 1960, which in turn was based on the Creationism of the 1920s, which in turn was based on the Fundamentalism of the 1870s, which in turn was based on ..... NOTHING!!!!! Fundametalism is by its very nature ahistorical, and basically rejects all Christian theology and philosophy on the 18th and 19th centuries. Fundamentalism is not a branch on the bush of Historical Christianity; it's a whole seperate bush. The break between Fundamentalism and Historical Christianity is therefore so radical, that it would be misleading to characterize it as a mere fork. It was really a new beginning of a whole new and different form of Christianity that really had no historical predecessors since the early Reformation. No movement of the Enlightenment Era is part of its pedigree. THIS IS WHAT I MEAN BY "COMPLETE BREAK".

When I start in the Enlightenment era and work forward, I find that the Natual Theology of Paley and the kind had essentially stopped playing a significant role in scientific thought by the beginning of the 20th century. There was no longer any equivalent of "Creation Science" at that point. Granted, not everybody accepted evolution, but nobody who rejected evolution used scientific or quasi-scientific arguments, but justified their rejection solely on biblical innerancy. Trying to justify their rejection with evidence from natural science was an idea that never would have entered their heads; that sort of thinking had essentially dided out without leaving any descendants.

That idea would have to wait until the resurgence of Fundamentalism, and the concomittant resurgence in Creationism, in the 1920s. It was at this time that the roots of modern Creation Science, including ID, were first laid down by George McCready Price, William Bell Riley and Harry Rimmer. Their forms of "Creation Science" were based on fundamentalist reasoning, and cannot be considered in any way a continuation of early 19th century thought, including Paley's Natural Theology, which was antitheical to their own respective theologies. If the Creation Science(s) of the 1920s resembled Natural Theology in any way, the similarities were either coincidental, or based on borrowing of superficial elements such as analogies and terminology, while rejecting the core elements of the philosphy and theology.

You mention Wilberforce and Spurgeon.

Wilberforce has absolutely nothing to do with modern Creationism, Creation Science or ID. He was a High Church Anglican; granted with significant Low Church sympathies, but nonetheless far removed from Fundamentalist thought. By 1900, his line of reasoning had died out, and had very little influence on the Creationism and Creation Science of the 1920s, 1960s or the 1980s (ID).

Spurgeon is a more interesting case. Like the American Fundamentalists, he completely broke with Historical Christianity, and indeed it was over the mater of evolution. He was not at all interested in science or anything resembling Creation Science, though, and thus has nothing to do with modern ID or Creation Science.

This is what I mean when I say that there is no continuity between modern ID and Natural Theology, and why I disagree with your observation of a "fork". I hope that I've made things clearer. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Nine?

You may have made a good argument for 10 not 9, with the addition of AP. Partial list from Appendix A in the OIG report:

Dec 2009: Associated Press, Seth Borenstein, Raphael Satter and Malcolm Ritter
Feb 2010: United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Minority Staff
Feb 2010: Pennsylvania State University, University Administrators
Mar 2010: United Kingdom House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee
Apr 2010: University of East Anglia, Oxburgh Panel
Jun 2010: Pennsylvania State University, Faculty Members
Jul 2010: University of East Anglia, Muir Russell Panel
Aug 2010: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Aug 2010: InterAcademy Council
Feb 2011: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General

We can discuss this here or on my talk page if you like. Viriditas (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm a little hesitant to engage with you on this since you're "taking a break," but I find it interesting, and this is my talk page, not the article talk page. Hmmm. Not sure, though; probably I'll hang back after this.

I didn't add the AP report; I was saying it should not be included. You had mentioned it on 04:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC).
You dismissed the Inhofe report on 23:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC). My understanding was that the strong arms were keeping it out, but I would be very happy to include it. However, it can't be construed to say "none of the inquiries found evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct." Excerpts:

The report finds that some of the scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and possibly federal laws. In addition, the Minority Staff believes the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC-based "consensus" and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.

In its examination of the controversy, the Minority Staff found that the scientists:

- Obstructed release of damaging data and information;

- Manipulated data to reach preconceived conclusions;

- Colluded to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science "consensus"; and

- Assumed activist roles to influence the political process.

The report also shows the world's leading climate scientists acting like political scientists, with an agenda disconnected from the principles of good science.

3. Mann only.

4. Valid.

5. Valid.

6. Mann only. This was an extension of Penn State's original, incomplete inquiry, not a "separate, independent" one.

7. Valid.

8. I found an EPA report that dismisses the charge of "evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate global temperature data." It says nothing of whether or not the scientists were "suppressing their critics." I cannot find that the EPA "investigated the allegations and published reports detailing their findings."

9. I cannot find a report on the CRU from the InterAcademy Council. I find a report on the IPCC.

10. I could not find the U.S. Department of Commerce's report; the link here is dead. Obviously there was one, but reports are ambiguous. This one looks reasonable, but says, "It also noted that NOAA did not review its climate change data specifically as a result of the climategate controversy but that the agency does that anyway as part of a normal scientific process." This is contrary to other claims that it was made at Inhofe's request. The investigation was of scientists at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

OK, I've been working at this off and on for hours now. :) It was a good exercise. My last link on #10 says, "The climategate incident has also been investigated by a British parliamentary inquiry, former U.K. civil servant Muir Russell, a panel of experts recommended by the U.K.'s Royal Society and Penn State University." I was counting only investigations of the scientists who work at the CRU in East Anglia. Now I see we should also count the investigations into US scientists. That would make 5 investigations: Parliament's, Russell's, Oxburgh's, Penn State's, and NOAA's.

I wish you well there in balmy Hawaii; frigid Alaska is still warming to the idea of summer--we're up to 61 today! Yopienso (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is very strange how the Department of Commerce deleted their report page from the website just after dozens of news sources linked to it from their news pages. Readers are met with a dead link to the report, leaving thousands wondering what happened to it. It's possible that it was just the wrong URL to begin with or there was a site overhaul that changed the layout. However, a little sleuthing shows that they did not delete the PDF report from their site, only their web page pointing to it. You can find it still located on their site here. Why they would make it so difficult for the public to review a public document hosted by a public agency boggles the mind. After you read it, I'll address your points. Viriditas (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK; do you think we're circumventing NW's request to take a break by discussing this here and now? Yopienso (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. He asked a group of editors to take a break from the article; this isn't a sitewide topic ban. You and I aren't arguing about anything. We're just trying to find out exactly how many investigations occurred and what we should say about them. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So be it. First, I think I got the NOAA and Dept. of Commerce reports mixed up wrt Inhofe's request. I've skimmed, not read, the DoC's report. It investigated only employees of the NOAA, so we can't make a blanket statement of the entire controversy based on it. Here's something I hadn't thought about before today: I have considered "Climategate" as a UK problem, likely because it happened at the UEA and, with the exception of Mann, the focus has been on British scientists. The emails, though, were not exclusively among Brits. We show a photo of the Hubert Lamb Building; should we also include an image of the hockey stick so readers don't see this as something peculiar to the UK? After all this time, I for one was still thinking that way. Yopienso (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how images help here. I would prefer to see an infobox in the lead with vital statistics, such as the number of investigations, and the conclusion, "no evidence of scientific malfeasance". Viriditas (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say, the whole tenor of that DoC rpt. seems to be, "Whew! Our guys didn't do any of that bad stuff." Dr. Lubchencotold us she personally read some ofthe emails and was relieved because they indicated that NOAA scientists had not done anything inappropriate involving their scientific work. Also, the inquiry resulted in a suspension of funding from the US. I looked but couldn't find that funding has been resumed; perhaps it has. Do you know? Point: Seems to me the DoC smelled a rat and was glad no Americans got caught in the trap. Yopienso (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YEC, OEC, or Evo?

Can you make clear your beliefs regarding the origin of the universe on my talk page? Thank you. Weknreven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 08:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum discussion

Please move your comment to the "threaded discussion" section. Everyone else so far has managed to play by the (entirely sensible) rules; please don't open the floodgates. Thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops--missed that. Done! Yopienso (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- much appreciated. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: History lesson

That was meant as a hyperbole. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian feral camel

hi, i've tagged Australian feral camel (the article, not the animal itself) for copyvio. Since you've commented on the talk page there, you may be interested. Boud (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Boud. I'm interested but busy/lazy. I don't know how to deal with that; maybe I'll mention it to an administrator. Or you can. Yopienso (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your 8 point summary

Hi Yopienso, I noted your 8 point summary in small font in the 'Climategate' talk page. I'd like to say that I think you have every point spot on. It's so rare that I find myself in broad agreement with anyone in this topic area that I felt I just had to share that with you. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Alex. Happy editing! Yopienso (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably go to ANI

There's no evidence of sockpuppetry and no evidence of meatpuppetry. Cerejota abused the SPI process and smeared you. At least one admin supported this smear. The SPI should be deleted. You need to file a report at WP:ANI. Viriditas (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished responding to him at Annyong's talk page. Maybe I should have just ignored him and dropped it. Right now I'm going to bed. Tomorrow I'll decide whether to take action or just merrily go my way. I wish to goodness I could edit as fast as Gise! It's crazy to think we're the same person. One little note like this one takes me several minutes to write and post. To add and delete and rearrange would take me all day! Oh well, sweet dreams. :) It's dropped below 50 here tonight and we've lit the barrel stove in our cozy little cabin. Very best wishes, 07:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No hay aguardiente...

asi que esto sera el substituto... Cerejota (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creo que con eso podemos. Gracias. ¡Salud! Yopienso (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pocillo

List of coffee beverages#Pocillo - I added this, but need sourcing in order to make a break-out article. Want to help? --Cerejota (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to help, but you've already discovered stuff I didn't know. To me, a pocillo is a coffee cup of any size (except they don't come very big; anything big's a taza); tinto is the drink itself, and pocillo tintero is the demitasse cup. I'm off to lunch now. Yopienso (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly belated, but...

Mmm...I haven't had baklava in ages. Many thanks! (You really don't seem the sort to get up to that kind of antic anyway, so I was mighty glad things were cleared up for you).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page titles

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Koguis a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Kogis. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Thank you for coming to my rescue. I'm a very helpless damsel in distress. I've never moved an article before and got all confuzzled. I totally lost the talk page, and I can't tell if it's all been found and restored or if some of it is still missing. I've just looked at several random articles and can't find a "Move" tab on any of them. !!! I did not know the WP "hospital" existed; will transport my patient over there, sirens wailing. Yopienso (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's because its been put in a drop-down menu, probably. It depends on which skin you're using. It would be to the right of Read, Edit, View history, a star (for adding to your watch list) - there should be a little down arrow. click it, and you'll see the Move option. Mind you, if you figured all this out ages ago and I'm coming in late to the party to no purpose, just ignore all this. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, bless my buttons! There it is! Thank you very much. Also, thanks for fixing my user boxes, even edged in my preferred green. I see you did it with Userboxtop|bordercolor=#008000|align=right inside double braces. I'd snooped around and thought I had to have a bunch of characters and "float," which was too complicated to contemplate. Is there a WP page about this, or do you "just know" it? Regards, Yopienso (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its a template; you can find it at {{Userboxtop}}; there are others but that one has the color border option. :-D I went looking for it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McKinley

I already renamed the image File:President McKinley as Old Mother Hubbard 1897 cartoon.jpg. Kudos to Rjensen for scanning and uploading the cartoon; I agree speculation doesn't belong in the file title. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks. I'm familiar with this cartoon, and feel quite certain the dog is Uncle Sam. See the goatee? The President, as Old Mother Hubbard, is showing her poor nation that the treasury is depleted. Dr. Jensen earned his Ph.D. in American studies from Yale when I was still in pigtails, but I don't know where he's coming from on this one. Yopienso (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel too bad

re[1]: It wasn't just you, it was you and three other editors, including the first person to respond. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, KC. I was just following that lead. . . stupidly. :0 Yopienso (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska map

If you dislike the map proposed by the Doctor, consider choosing that one, which is pretty much the same map that is now showing the location of Alaska. No wonder: same template was used. However, colors were changed in order to match common style of wikipedia location maps (cf. Juneau, Alaska-map) and all the other U.S. state location maps. You decide. Have a nice day. Greetings from Germany.--TUBS (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for dropping by. I see Dr. Blofeld has systematically gone through and ~~messed up~~ changed all the state maps, not just Alaska's. ~~What a shame! I don't have time to fix them.~~ I wish he hadn't, but will not revert them. My reversion was to the long-standing "common style" that he, apparently on his own, decided to change. I strongly disagree with that decision. Tschüss! Yopienso (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TUBS has already explained the reason for the change, to match the pin locator maps. God frowns down on those who fail to assume good faith Yopienso. Personally I would consider a sea full of white lines far more ugly, but each to his own. Your idea of "messed up" may be somebody else's idea of improvement. I resent your comment, it shows a very narrow way of looking at things. And since when did wikipedia become the free encyclopedia that nobody can edit unless they ask permission first? Nobody owns an article, even US states.

I just realised that you are the guy kicking up a fuss over the musical bio infobox. You know you have a real problem with seeing things form other perspectives and that other people may think differently to you and that thousands of other people use wikipedia aside from yourself. You don't own any article, so stop acting as if your opinion is fact. May the Lord bless you. ♦ Dr. Blofeld

Welcome, Dr. Blofeld! I'm sorry you're resentful. Maybe we can clear up a few things here.

TUBS told me you changed the Alaska map in order to match common style of wikipedia location maps (cf. Juneau, Alaska-map) and all the other U.S. state location maps. Not a word about "pin locator," and the only reason it matches "all the other U.S. state location maps" is because you decided to change them all. I was unaware of your recent changes, not having consulted one of those articles in the last week. I don't happen to agree that it was necessary to match the pin locator maps, but that's only my preference against yours.

I don't know how you fail to see I was assuming good faith: If you have a good reason for the change, I'd be happy to hear it and cooperate with your improvement.

The "sea full of white lines" is essential to indicate latitude; otherwise, we have North America floating on an uncharted sea. (You might be surprised at how many users would not realize where the North Pole is on your map.)

I do not own any articles. Imo, setting about to change a long-standing format across 50 articles is something an editor would not do unilaterally. Obviously, we differ on how bold we should be.

Yes, I'm the gal who asked Jimbo or any page watchers to comment on the blocking of infoboxes on opera pages. Personally, I don't describe that as "kicking up a fuss." I could agree that I kicked up a small fuss on the article talk page before quickly adjusting my tone. I am known for my ability and willingness to see an issue from many angles, and ended my communication on Jimbo's page with, Well, in any case, as a drive-by editor, I'm respecting the consensus on those pages. Thanks to each for your perspective and best wishes to all.

Some other editors did, again imo and from my limited perspective, kick up a small fuss on Jimbo's page. I thought your comment was excellent and would love to see your suggestion implemented:

Given the division of opinion over infoboxes I'm not sure why the option in "my preferences" isn't introduced to hide all infoboxes and those who want them can have them and those who detest them can simply hide them and by default just feature whatever photo is in the infobox to be thumb nailed at the top. Flexibility is the key...

May the Lord bless you, too, and may God smile on you. Yopienso (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I in fact have no problems with the ALaska map you like. But as I say it was to make the maps consistent with the pin maps. I'm not resentful, in fact I'd have been perfectly nice but for your comment "I see Dr. Blofeld has systematically gone through and messed up all the state maps, not just Alaska's. What a shame! I don't have time to fix them." the tone of which I found rather unpleasant. I seriously doubt many readers of wikipedia would consider the maps "creating a mess". It was to be expected though as they have a lot of editors watching the pages. I encountered similar difficulties with the settlement articles. Personally I think the census maps look awful and unprofessional and I think the US maps for American settlements need sorting out big time. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Creating a mess" is a bit more than I said. To me, "mess up" meant the opposite of "improve." I honestly think the old ones look better. But I can see your objection to my tone and am willing to refactor to, "I see Dr. Blofeld has systematically gone through and changed all the state maps, not just Alaska's. I wish he hadn't, but will not revert them." Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Here's some of my history with the Alaska map. How it was. How Weetoddid changed it since I have zero technical expertise in that area. A note I found but don't really remember. Ciao. Yopienso (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for composer-infobox comments

Thank you for noting the rejection of infoboxes for composers on enwiki: I see the Spanish Wikipedia does not have that restriction. I have found most infoboxes to be helpful, as they encourage abstraction of important details, such as "Known for" major compositions, "Influenced by" prior composers or schools, and "Influenced" some other notable composers (or "many"). When infoboxes are omitted, then some other-language Wikipedias would likely omit "1812 Overture" or "Swan Lake" with no infobox to show "Composer's favorite: The Sleeping Beauty". Always remember how quickly such infoboxes can be translated into other languages, for perhaps 50 film composers such as John Barry (composer), in a relatively short amount of time, where each language could list a few popular compositions. Also, as you are likely aware, some pages to discuss issues are "feeding grounds for trolls" and it is difficult to get others to respond there, candidly, when words are often twisted by troublemakers. Perhaps if WP had a no-password username "anonymous" (with no IP-address tracking), then we could get more all-the-truth replies, whereas users are always in danger of being censored, but trolls would likely abuse that faster than others could post helpful comments. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, although I must say I had no idea I was stepping into a minefield. Why does Tarc call you "Wnt"? That confused me. The translating bit is really over my head. Yo hablo espanol perfectamente bien, pero mis contribuciones son casi enteramente en ingles. Yopienso (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of "Wnt" confused me as well, but there might have been a psychological misfire because Tarc is among a group of people who, for years, have opposed explaining the lack of detailed evidence against U.S. student Amanda Knox and recommended that I be topic-banned from discussing the "Murder of Meredith Kercher" and related people; they actively worked to delete the Amanda Knox article (now deleted) and insisted she was non-notable despite having a higher TV rating in Italy than Carla Bruni (in 2009). Many people tried to emphasize that the American student is the major reason for the worldwide notability of the Kercher murder, so the event has questioned the very foundations of how notability is assessed in WP, such as no separate article for Casey Anthony (acquitted of Florida murder in July 2011 but now on trial again for another charge). Meanwhile, one admin issued a topic-ban against me while I was edit-blocked for a month (by User:Fram) and on wikibreak, so I responded that the topic-ban was not valid without giving me time to reject the false information posted about me. Anyway, in translations to other languages, an infobox is often already available in the other-language Wikipedia, so all that is needed is to put a one-line intro to a musician and fill-in-the-blanks. It can take just a matter of minutes to put Simon and Garfunkel into another language Wikipedia and list "Bridge over Troubled Water" when there is a row for popular songs, etc. The infoboxes allow creating simple foreign articles in an easy copy-cat manner. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 186: / Line 186: @@
 Thank you for noting the rejection of infoboxes for composers on enwiki: I see the Spanish Wikipedia does not have that restriction. I have found most infoboxes to be helpful, as they encourage ''abstraction'' of important details, such as "Known&nbsp;for" major compositions, "Influenced&nbsp;by" prior composers or schools, and "Influenced" some other notable composers (or "many"). When infoboxes are omitted, then some other-language Wikipedias would likely omit ''"1812 Overture"'' or ''"Swan Lake"'' with no infobox to show "Composer's favorite: ''[[The Sleeping Beauty]]''". Always remember how quickly such infoboxes can be translated into other languages, for perhaps 50 film composers such as [[John Barry (composer)]], in a relatively short amount of time, where each language could list a few popular compositions. Also, as you are likely aware, some pages to discuss issues are "[[WP:Do not feed the trolls|feeding grounds for trolls]]" and it is difficult to get others to respond there, candidly, when words are often twisted by [[troublemaker]]s. Perhaps if WP had a no-password username "anonymous" (with no IP-address tracking), then we could get more all-the-truth replies, whereas users are always in danger of being censored, but trolls would likely abuse that faster than others could post helpful comments. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 13:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 :You're welcome, although I must say I had no idea I was stepping into a minefield. Why does Tarc call you "Wnt"? That confused me. The translating bit is really over my head. Yo hablo espanol perfectamente bien, pero mis contribuciones son casi enteramente en ingles. [[User:Yopienso|Yopienso]] ([[User talk:Yopienso#top|talk]]) 18:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
+:: The mention of "[[User:Wnt|Wnt]]" confused me as well, but there might have been a psychological misfire because Tarc is among a group of people who, for years, have opposed explaining the lack of detailed evidence against U.S. student Amanda Knox and recommended that I be topic-banned from discussing the "[[Murder of Meredith Kercher]]" and related people; they actively worked to delete the Amanda Knox article (now deleted) and insisted she was non-notable despite having a higher TV rating in Italy than [[Carla Bruni]] (in 2009). Many people tried to emphasize that the American student is the major reason for the worldwide notability of the Kercher murder, so the event has questioned the very foundations of how notability is assessed in WP, such as no separate article for [[Casey Anthony]] (acquitted of Florida murder in July 2011 but now on trial again for another charge). Meanwhile, one admin issued a topic-ban against me while I was edit-blocked for a month (by [[User:Fram]]) and on wikibreak, so I responded that the topic-ban was not valid without giving me time to reject the false information posted about me. Anyway, in translations to other languages, an infobox is often already available in the other-language Wikipedia, so all that is needed is to put a one-line intro to a musician and fill-in-the-blanks. It can take just a matter of minutes to put [[Simon and Garfunkel]] into another language Wikipedia and list ''"[[Bridge over Troubled Water]]"'' when there is a row for popular songs, etc. The infoboxes allow creating simple foreign articles in an easy copy-cat manner. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 05:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)