EdJohnston
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 |
Jonathan Littell
Hi,
Littell has lived in France for many, many years, and speaks french almost without accent. If he now lives in Spain, then he qualifies for two different categories of expatriates. :) Max Thayer 00:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll add some facts to set the story straight.Max Thayer 11:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
LOC catalog won't return some books for which Wikipedia has {{LCCN}} numbers
This is a note to myself about some Library of Congress Catalog Numbers that don't appear to work. That is, looking them up at catalog.loc.gov returns nothing. This would imply (if the failures are permanent) that the corresponding numbers ought to be removed from the articles. Just lately I became aware of work to add special keywords to {{cite book}} to deal with ISBNs, OCLCs and LCCNs. I am wondering if we should even bother with the LCCNs.
Click this link to generate 'what links here' to the LCCN template. Now you could start going down through the LCCNs in every article in the resulting list:
- This works, and the LOC returns a catalog entry for the book (You can confirm this by clicking on it).
- The LOC catalog shows *NO* copies of The Two Towers published in 1967. If someone wants to correct them, the bad LCCN numbers are actually in {{ME-ref/TT}} and {{ME-ref/FOTR}}, not in the Faramir article itself.
- Flag of the United States: LCCN 94-0 – 642: This works OK
- Hasidic Judaism: All six LCCNs work
- Judaism: Two LCCNs both work
- Actuary: LCCN 20-1 – 0: This works OK
So, not all LCCNs are broken in Wikipedia! However, if there were an automatic way of searching them all in the LOC catalog, we could find out which ones are bad. I found two bad ones out of thirteen examined. EdJohnston 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
RE:Cladistics
Hello EdJohnston! Feel free to edit the article, if you think your information is going to enhance the article. Check this page for suggestions on how to improve the article, as well. Any help is appreciated. --Crzycheetah 23:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Note to myself. Some day I hope to improve the Cladistics article. See some new material at User:EdJohnston/Cladistics_improvement. EdJohnston 04:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
ICE
Hello Ed
I see you removed the reference to ICE from the RSS page on the basis that it wasn't really early and wasn't important enough to merit its own Wikipedia entry. I don't think the importance of something should be measured by whether or not it has a Wikipedia entry, and I did change the sentence to read 'among the early' because ICE was not 'earliest'. I think ICE deserves a mention in an authorative acount of RSS because it shows what can happen with an industry led initiative - a long and complex standard that ultimately didn't succeed. So in a funny way its importance is its lack of importance.
cheers Ben (ben.toth@gmail.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.238.157 (talk)
Judgement
Hey Ed K, there is no team leader! Just use your best judgment. EdJohnston 04:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I treat folks with admin privileges as "folks in charge" or at the least, experienced "go-to" folks. Besides, I seemed to offend some when I decided to leave my comments visible to all. I truly consider Wiki to be a great "Work in Progress" and nothing that folks should be ashamed of. All reference books have errors, thats why they get revised. I have wondered all along just how many people even noticed the flag note at the bottom of the page indicating a invalid isbn? (ya, I saw tonights note in the Cat section) When you stop and think about it, if a person is sensitive to how something "might look" to others, (A lack of professionalism) what is the the difference in the note at the bottom of the page? All very strange to me. Right now I am using a "three strikes rule" I have three search tools open at the same time. I try title and authors name in each tool. If that fails, it gets the "hidden indicator" that will then await someone else to look for it, especially difficult to locate if its from the referenced section (^). At this rate, we might be done by summer............But thats ok, I have other projects to fiddle with.Ekotkie 05:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Ed, I'm not an administrator, but I enjoy the suggestion. See Wikipedia:List_of_administrators to figure out who actually is (e.g. Rich Farmbrough). EdJohnston 05:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ekotkie -- you could correspond with me, since I'm probably the "some" you are referring to. (I'm really not as difficult and as unreasonable as you may have concluded.) I've said in several places I was not offended. And, though my own perspective, it appears the technique we all seem to be using now, that fell out of your and my interaction, is working nicely for everyone on the project. Plus, we are making stellar progress on eliminating "bad" ISBNs. These are good things, aren't they? What's the purpose of allowing one disagreement between two "good" users live off in to WP posterity? Disagreements, discussion, and a better spot for all concerned happens all the time in a wiki environment, doesn't it? Keesiewonder 14:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Admin
Ed, I will propose you if you wish, either presently or at a later date. Rich Farmbrough, 23:08 12 January 2007 (GMT).
- P.S. I would suggest, if you do wish, a later date might be more propitious, but the offer still stands. Rich Farmbrough, 23:09 12 January 2007 (GMT).
- Thanks for the kind offer. I think I'll wait till I have 4,000 edits! EdJohnston 23:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
ISBN Fixing Guidelines Draft per Your Request
Please see a draft at User:Keesiewonder/ISBN_Fixing_Guidelines. Feedback, as always, is welcome. Keesiewonder 14:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Aliweb
(New post to you, Ed, on your Aliweb thread on my talk page. Athænara ✉ ) 12:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This month's MCB Collaboration of the Month article is Peripheral membrane protein!
| Peripheral membrane protein The Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject's current Collaboration of the Month article is Peripheral membrane protein. |
Delete per WP:CIVIL?
Could you explain why you said that /b/tard should be deleted per WP:CIVIL (a policy that states that users should "Participate in a respectful and civil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally") at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion//b/tard?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not the right category. I should have looked at WP:NOT#CENSORED. I updated my AfD comment at [1]. EdJohnston 18:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Sources & titles
Moved to User talk:Visviva
Hi EdJohnston,
A source in English would be delightful... but considering that such books are rather hard to come by even in Korean, I'd be very surprised if anyone could turn up a comparable English-language source. Pleasantly surprised; if you have any leads, please let me know. :-)
As for the title... well, gut is commonly translated as "exorcism," but that is misleading at best. "Shamanic practice" or "shamanic rites" would be more appropriate IMO. Given the actual content of the book (it deals only with Buddhist/shamanic sites), perhaps a better translation would be Sites of Buddhist prayer and shamanic practice nationwide. Does that scan a little better?
I've actually been given to understand that original translations of titles are frowned on, although personally I think their benefits outweigh the costs. I've been experimenting with using square brackets to set off the translations, so that no one will be misled into thinking that the English is actually part of the title... something like 전국의 기도터와 굿당 [jeonguk-ui gidoteo-wa gutdang] [Sites of Buddhist prayer and shamanic practice nationwide]. I'm not sure if that format is really an improvement, though, so I haven't been implementing it very widely. There has to be a more elegant solution (maybe some new parameters in {{cite book}}). Cheers, -- Visviva 00:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with that travel guide, but it would probably be a worthy addition, particularly for the tourism section. Anything it might have to say about Gyeongju more generally would still need to be backed up by more authoritative sources. I'll be stateside next month, and will try to make some time to look into possible English-language sources. Cheers, -- Visviva 14:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Long Tail External Link
Hi EdJohnston,
Per your concern about the link I added on the Long Tail page:
http://www.netconcepts.com/download/ChasingTheLongTail6-28-06.pdf
Net Concepts is a Search Optimization company, and to that end they are involved in online marketing. This white paper, however, is not a sales tool so much as it is a presentation of some interesting and relative research with regard to the Long Tail concept as it relates to SEO.
It also relates to, and expands upon, these existing article links:
- The Long Tail Blog by Chris Anderson
- Long Tail Search by Michael Duz
- "Search's Long Tail" by Danny Sullivan
Thanks,
Patchwork
Hi Ed, thanks for your continued progress! There is no requirement for you to add OCLCs if you don't believe in them. However Keesiewonder did include OCLC as one of the options to consider in her proposed ISBN fixing guidelines (User:Keesiewonder/ISBN_Fixing_Guidelines). Inclusion of an OCLC number does certify that the book really exists, and it allows the reader to verify book details for themselves, since they can click on the underlined OCLC number and it opens up a list of libraries that hold the book. (Also it allows us as the ISBN-fixers to convince ourselves that the book details that some previous editor left are actually correct. EdJohnston 15:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Moved to User talk:Ekotkie § Benefits of OCLC
- Sorry, I am not convinced. It is Jan 18 and we are now past the date where ISBN-13 was "supposed" to be implemented. Ed, it strikes me as just one more delay in a process that is really, straight forward. It either has an isbn or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then cut to the chase and drop the bogus one being used and let the title and reference stand on its own for us by others. Wiki is not a lending library and as such, using OCLC is a bit of overkill. Since we have demonstrated users who don't even seem to understand the isbn system (myself to a degree)what makes you think they would understand how to use an OCLC number? It also amazes me that since this conversion has been know since 2001, no one has established a "plan" and finished this task, LONG AGO. Please excuse my aerospace background. If we had built a product using the "rules" used here, we would be out of business. Take a look at the comments of the gent above the msg. you sent. He quotes "I have had some delays", yet has has almost 30 pages of archive chatter on his talk page. He complains about comments that are not seen by any normal viewer. Rather then resolve his problem, he has sent me two notes on this subject and I don't know him from Adam. Maybe I should just go away. Let you folks do this task and complete it by summer time or whenever. I really have other things that I can productively invest my time on. Keep it simple, fix the isbns.
Ekotkie 16:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, SatuSuro and I are probably the initial ones to have corresponded. What I remember was I was working on one of "his" pages for the ISBN clean-up project, I encountered a tricky situation, he initially didn't like what I did, we worked it out together, and I have a subpage off of my user page where I made a suggestion to him for one of his sources that is heavily quoted throughout Wikipedia. Initially, SaturSuro seemed rather irked with me; but, after a little dialog, things worked out nicely. He seemed eager to update his own pages, but it sounds like he may have lots of other responsibilities too. I think if we proposed to him that we update "his" Western Australia related pages (he does not in any way feel he owns the pages) the way my subpage indicates, everything would be fine. Keesiewonder 23:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think you must be referring to this thread [2]. Your compromise looks fine to me. Perhaps you could write and see what further research SatuSuro is hoping to conduct? Just a thought. SatuSuro did say (on Ed K's talk) that he needed another 24 hours to finish something. EdJohnston 03:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- This very item is also being discussed on Rich F's talk at [3].EdJohnston 04:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Seeing my wikipedia name being mentioned - I have provided my answer at Rich Farmbrough's talk page - if anyone would like to see problems that are 6 months or longer, I would gladly lead you into the foray - otherwise I am correcting a problem that I created. I think patience and civility are required in heaps in wikipedia. SatuSuro 05:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, EdJ, that's the thread ... and ... as I understand it from correspondence with SatuSuro, this is the solution. Keesiewonder 10:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Invitation to vote/comment
Hi, this article has been renamed and is being considered for deltetion (MfD). Your vote/comment is invited. [4] Thanks Steth 22:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Edited previous comment to wrap the URL properly. EdJohnston 23:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Mazo de la Roche
[Moved this ISBN discussion with User:Droll to CT:INV and put it here.] EdJohnston 04:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Re. New vandalism from User_talk:204.108.96.18
Hello there. Well yes, he is to be blocked if he transgresses the blatant-vandal warning that you left on his talk page. But I checked his contributions and he has not done so yet. If you notice he does, you may contact me or report to WP:AIV. Thanks for the good work. Regards, Húsönd 19:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
How'd I miss this?
I just ran in to a new template ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moeraki. Seems like a great idea, but, there's a part of me that fears that some may be have a tendency to overuse it ... Usage in this case seems perfect, but, I'm thinking in general. Plus, though I have been busy the last couple days, I don't remember seeing an announcement of this new template anywhere. I'm sure you'll set my mind straight on this ... Thanks. Keesiewonder talk 12:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Keesie. See John Vandenberg's comment at [5]. If I can get my thoughts organized to comment on this I'll respond over at CT:INV. Seems harmless if not overused. EdJohnston 15:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
same kind of mess?
Hi EdJ,
Is this the same kind of mess that we saw at the Doom novels article? Keesiewonder talk 10:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look; would you mind taking another peek to see if I fixed it correctly? Keesiewonder talk 23:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that looks fine! To be extra thorough, I suppose someone would look through the article for other mistaken SUBSTs. Reminds me of the question whether Google will search on hidden text (I suppose they can't see the wiki text anyway, so maybe there's nothing they can do). Only people like Rich Farmbrough can search the wiki text (because he has an off-line copy of the database). But I ramble.. EdJohnston 23:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks again! :-) Keesiewonder talk 10:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that looks fine! To be extra thorough, I suppose someone would look through the article for other mistaken SUBSTs. Reminds me of the question whether Google will search on hidden text (I suppose they can't see the wiki text anyway, so maybe there's nothing they can do). Only people like Rich Farmbrough can search the wiki text (because he has an off-line copy of the database). But I ramble.. EdJohnston 23:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Civility
Etkotkie should be reminded SatuSuro 23:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've seen your message on E's page - and appreciate it - I constantly tell others not to own their arts and couldnt care what happens to ones that I have created - just protective that whatever happens is within wikipedia polices ectc- there is a difference - perhaps impatience and irritability - just ten cents short of the full bottle - would have been better than civility or etiquette. What concerns me more as with all the young editors I have welcomed here in australia over the last couple of months - is not my personal suffering others stumbling while new on wikpedia - more if they dont pull themselves in line with accepted behaviour within wikipedia - they will - and I am sure of it - find less tolerant editors or admins if they do not find a balanced more graceful sense of equanimity rather than their own eccentric ways of dealing with issues on wikipedia - great if et does well and enjoys himself - great - but reacting to a request to follow the agreed final form is just plain not reading things properly in my opinion. I dont give a dam what he thinks of me or anything like that - its just if you or rich arent around and he goes on like that to others less understanding he'll find out how others might respond to that tone of message and response to a simple good faith request.... SatuSuro 00:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hey Ed K! Projects like ISBN-fixing depend on the tolerance of the regular editors for our peculiar activities. It's easy for us to avoid battles by deferring to the regular editors. On my talk page SatuSuro mentioned WP:CIVIL. When I look over people's remarks I notice you're not happy with the situation but I didn't see any bad words on either side. At most, I saw a tendency for SS to own his articles, and a tendency for you to own the ISBNs. WP:OWN applies as much to us as to others. We don't own the ISBNs, all we can do is try to get a consensus for our changes. You should be willing to listen to whatever SatuSuro has to say, and think of better arguments, if you can. EdJohnston 00:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, when it comes to this guy and his constant delaying tactics in getting this job done and then warning me about approaching "his" articles, he has just hit my short string. I do not consider that "I" own isbn. I have volunteered to assist in doing a task that is now, past due. I think I have done a considerable effort based upon the reductions that I have seen and tracked. I am done "listening" to his excuses. Everyone else who has ever asked me about what was happening with isbn has been very pleased with the work being done and the efforts of all those who have joined in to do it. I will be pleased to see him go away and quietly fix his pages in the recommended manner that he was given. If you want me to pack my bags, just say the word. Ekotkie 00:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't feel anyone here needs to pack. Fortunately we have several of us active on the ISBN project now, so if one pair of editors does not get along famously, perhaps another pair will. SatuSuro was tough on me after my first edit to one of the articles he frequents a lot, but, we worked it out quickly. I proposed a solution to him; he loved it. He and I mentioned it in several places, in the event that others may have a chance to fix the articles before he or I got around to it. I'm not quite sure what happened then ... but I have now edited every instance of Charles Whitham citations on the English Wikipedia that I could find in hopes that we can all keep the peace. I have probably fixed more of the Whitham citations than anyone else at this point, and SatuSuro is fine with that. So, at least as far as I can tell, he does not in any way feel the articles are his. My sense of him is he thrives on collaboration that slowly but surely improves the quality of Wikipedia articles. He's probably been burned many times on WP, as we all have or will be, and thus does not necessarily come across as easy to work with at first. Anyway, all of "his" articles should be free and clear of Charles Whitham citation and/or ISBN issues. If anyone, Ekotkie or anyone else, runs into others, please know you can contact me to help correspond with SatuSuro ... we seem to work well together. Keesiewonder talk 11:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Curious, why did YOU have to fix all of the articles that he has taken such a strong interest in? You obviously went the extra mile and gave him a solution. Why didn't he take that solution and run with it? He seemed to have plenty of time to stir the subject up with anyone who "encroached" on his areas of conncern. Please excuse me for becoming "impatient" with his constant chatter and delays. There are countless articles in Wikiland that do not have completed references(were the term "completed" even definable). That is fine with me. The page owner has given his/her very best to assist others in the knowledge of a reference without using invalid information. So why is SatuSuro so special that he needs special treatment in protecting his articles? By the way, you have used EdJ's page here to respond to things I have talked about to Ed in the past without posting response on my talk page. This crazy talk system is structured bad enough as it is and if one wants their comments acknowledged then they should post those comments in the proper ___location. If EdJ has accepted the responsibility of receiving all comments, that is great to know and I too will quit sending my responses on correct pages also. Ekotkie 18:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't feel anyone here needs to pack. Fortunately we have several of us active on the ISBN project now, so if one pair of editors does not get along famously, perhaps another pair will. SatuSuro was tough on me after my first edit to one of the articles he frequents a lot, but, we worked it out quickly. I proposed a solution to him; he loved it. He and I mentioned it in several places, in the event that others may have a chance to fix the articles before he or I got around to it. I'm not quite sure what happened then ... but I have now edited every instance of Charles Whitham citations on the English Wikipedia that I could find in hopes that we can all keep the peace. I have probably fixed more of the Whitham citations than anyone else at this point, and SatuSuro is fine with that. So, at least as far as I can tell, he does not in any way feel the articles are his. My sense of him is he thrives on collaboration that slowly but surely improves the quality of Wikipedia articles. He's probably been burned many times on WP, as we all have or will be, and thus does not necessarily come across as easy to work with at first. Anyway, all of "his" articles should be free and clear of Charles Whitham citation and/or ISBN issues. If anyone, Ekotkie or anyone else, runs into others, please know you can contact me to help correspond with SatuSuro ... we seem to work well together. Keesiewonder talk 11:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi EdJ, Please see this FYI. Keesiewonder talk 20:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello all. Just for the record, I have no complaints about anyone at this time! I am amazed that this many ISBNs are getting fixed, and the whole thing got rolling just after Rich F and I got finished scolding Ed K for changing some ISBN the wrong way. In spite of our encouragement, he went ahead and became one of the mainstays of the effort.
If you are afraid that someone won't see your comment that you are leaving on page X (which is not their talk page), you can always use the Keesie trick of posting 'Please see my comment over at [X]', which you can write directly to the talk page of the person you want a response from. EdJohnston 21:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, one more glitch with this stupid system. As I was attempting to answer Kessie's comments, you dropped this on my page and it preempted my comments to her. I just LOVE this communications tool. Ekotkie 21:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
From my talk page My opinions about Ekotkie can be found on Ed Johnsons, and Keesiwonders talk pages - SatuSuro 01:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC) And I would like to thank the editor Ekotkie for in fact seeing the west coast stubs defended by such elaborate referencing that they are now well insured against rogue Afd crazies - thank you SatuSuro 03:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC) However I am tired of being a scapegoat - please if you have a problem - you should directly say it to the user directl concerned - I am really bored seeing my name constantly slandered. All over a non existent isbn - absurd! SatuSuro 00:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Winer AFD
I removed it becuase they cleaned up the article. The template says that should be left there until the disscussion is resolved and it was definatily resolved because the only person that felt the article should be changed is now happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Nirelan (talk • contribs) 26 January 2007
Nothing in the rules says an administrator has to remove it. It says "After 5 days of discussion, a volunteer will move the day's list of deletion discussions" I respected the wishes of those that thought it should stay and removed it after five days. It may not make the administrators happy, but we followed Wikipedia's guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Nirelan (talk • contribs) 26 January 2007
- I found a point of procedure that appears to endorse normal users closing discussion in a non-speedy keep, and says it is only "recommended", not required, for an admin to be involved for a speedy keep. Though, technically, he needs to change his !vote to keep for it to qualify for speedy keep at all —Random8322007-01-27 04:21 UTC (01/26 23:21 EST) P.S. It's worth noting, though, that contrary to Nirelan's belief, it has not been five days.
WP:CSK "Although closing AfD discussions that end with an outcome of "keep" can be done by non-admins, it is recommended that only administrators close discussions as speedy-keeps. Normal users are encouraged to recommend a "speedy keep" instead." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Random832 (talk • contribs). 26 January 2007.
- The problem is that User:Nirelan is very unfamiliar with WP procedures. He is unlikely to correctly follow the steps needed to move templates around when an AfD is closed. Perhaps you can do those steps yourself, if you agree with his procedure. It appears to be a conflict of interest to close a discussion that you've been a participant in, per WP:DELPRO, with some vague possible exceptions. Also Talk:Dave Winer should get a banner that mentions the unsuccessful AfD, if that's what you think happened. EdJohnston 04:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say put the afd banner back up and let it wait out the whole five days, (it's not like it's going to be up forever) or until an uninterested admin decides to SK it. I fear at this point any SK would have to be SNOW, since there's the complicating issue that a lot of what we're taking for granted to be Nirelan's actions are IPs that have not (and I don't think there's sufficient cause to do so) been checkusered. —Random8322007-01-27 04:44 UTC (01/26 23:44 EST)
Sorry; Had to Mention This
FYI. It concerns me to see major portions of articles -- FAs especially -- inadvertently blanked out. Might you be able to suggest a clever way to ferret out other instances where this may have happened? Keesiewonder talk 11:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- The hidden text in wiki code is well and truly hidden, because it doesn't appear (in any form) in the rendered page (I just checked using the 'View source' button of my browser). Only the person who clicks 'Edit this page' can see it. Someone who has the patience to download a dump of WP could write a script that extracts all the hidden text. Better not suggest this to Rich F, he might get interested in the challenge and actually do it! EdJohnston 04:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ulam Quarterly
Hi Ed, I was wondering if you could add some thoughts regarding WP:LOMJ/Queue#Ulam Quarterly. John Vandenberg 01:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- John, please see my reply over at WP:LOMJ/Queue#Ulam Quarterly. EdJohnston 04:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Lets take the discussion to Category talk:Articles with invalid ISBNs. I'll copy your comment on my talk page to the discussion page. --Droll 07:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
ISBN
Why did you remove the OttoBib link? It was posted to the talk page without objection. Dhaluza 18:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- It was helpful of you to enter a comment on the Talk page, but no-one supported (or even responded), so technically you were OK there. Actually I didn't remove that link, it was 216.231.50.219 who did so. He substituted his own version of a similar tool. Then, I removed *his* link. Finally, you should be aware of the deletion debate about OttoBib.com. If you would like the article to be kept, you could join in that discussion. EdJohnston 18:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't realize you only followed on what 216.231.50.219 started. This looked like IP vandalism from a single purpose source, and I could not undo it because of your subsequent edit, so I reverted it. If you wanted to make specific changes you will need to reapply them. Dhaluza 02:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I didn't notice your original message at Talk:ISBN. I'm not sure that this link is appropriate for the page, because it is only a convenience link, and does not seem to illuminate the explanation of ISBNs provided in the article itself. WP:NOT a directory and so forth. I think your new link would need a consensus supporting it on the Talk page. Conceivably WP would benefit from an internal page in Wikipedia space that had links to bibliographic tools, in which your link would actually be appropriate. EdJohnston 02:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't realize you only followed on what 216.231.50.219 started. This looked like IP vandalism from a single purpose source, and I could not undo it because of your subsequent edit, so I reverted it. If you wanted to make specific changes you will need to reapply them. Dhaluza 02:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Ottobib
Thanks for mentioning it to me--I have just replied at length on the AfD pageDGG 05:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Bot's rule..(Oh really?)
Hi Ed, would you drop over to my page and look at the response I just received from a bot. I think I have had enough fun for one day. The end is near and it won't be soon enough. I've just about run out of fixable stuff. Have a good one. Ekotkie 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's quite a message! Feel free to complain over at Shadowbot's page. I went ahead and zapped the bad ISBN-13 at Role-playing game theory and put in a cite book template, and if it reverts me, I'll be seriously annoyed! EdJohnston 02:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Jorge Stolfi
I see you emailed this guy to see if he was still contributing here - User talk:Jorge_Stolfi#Oriented projective geometry. What a list of articles! There's only one other user I've come across who matches that - but I've forgotten who it is. Any news of Jorge? Or is he to be added to the list of missing Wikipedians?--Shtove 20:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- No response back! I'm afraid he is no longer active here. EdJohnston 20:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Note to myself: Memorable quote from Guy Chapman (User_talk:JzG) about unsourced articles
Question given to Guy: "So there is absolutely no way to have an article with only one source?"
No, it's not the only thing, but it is the first and worst, because without sources we cannot have an article at all, so without sources it is simply not worth expending any effort rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. No sources, no article, no exceptions. So: first, find good sources. If you can't, then you've chosen the wrong subject, bad luck, pick another one. Multiple, non-trivial, independent sources is what's required, and your one source fails that test, so in fact you have no independent non-trivial sources. In point of fact there is precedent for deleting articles which have one reasonably good source, but your source is not reasonably good. Sorry. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Copied here from [6] on 1 Feb 2006. EdJohnston 01:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Issue of reverting well-sourced information (in case of a COI)
Another note to myself, because I tend to lose this information. Per this comment by User:MER-C at the Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard, if well-sourced information is removed from an article, it is appropriate to revert it and then leave the vandal warning {{test1a}}. Though he said this in the context of removal of material by an editor with a conflict of interest, who was reverting criticism of his own company. EdJohnston 21:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Evolution
People sure do! I haven't followed this week's discussion, and would hate to archive any material still relevant to improving the article. If you have been following discussion, by all means, archive away! Slrubenstein | Talk 09:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. It looks like the same guy. I'll keep on eye on their actions. I noticed that they have vandalised the page three times, but only been warned once. It's better to warn a few times, that makes blocking easier to justify. Guettarda 20:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually Harehawk was blocked yesterday, but now there's a "new" editor, User:Hawknel. Probably the same person or a meatpuppet, but I need to observe a little longer. Guettarda 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
RSS icon
haha, no problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.79.73 (talk) 8 February, 2007.
ISSN ?
FYI --Keesiewonder talk 01:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Which makes me wonder - I have just loaded multiple issn's to an article and the dont show up blue - is that correct ? SatuSuro 02:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Embarrassed - issue sorted out SatuSuro 08:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Another FYI ... --Keesiewonder talk 19:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I think that editor has something against the very concept of history, judging by his other edits. Cheers, Doctormatt 07:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Edit wars at Dave Winer
This is a note for my own information.
Thanks to a recent block by Ryulong, some of the problems surrounding the Dave Winer article are now less pressing. However, blocks are often undone, and the reasons for the block are sometimes not understood by other administrators who may hear the story. This is a collection of files where some of the issues are discussed.
| Supporting data for the Dave Winer edit wars and the Nirelan block |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
EdJohnston 04:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
|
RSS
Sorry it took so long - despite defending the Dave Winer article I'm somewhat out of my depth here - it looks like it could probably use more sources. In particular, "this might suggest" seems like a weasel-word for original research, see if you can attribute that view to someone. --Random832(tc) 21:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I'm planning to drop the last sentence of the paragraph I sent to you anyway. We know for sure that Guha created the Meta Content Framework, which was announced by 1997, but exactly who did what after that can't be determined from our current references. The Netscape press release of March 1999 doesn't mention Guha's name, so we can't even declare him as the author of that implementation. The editors who created History of web syndication technology may be able to gather more data about this period. EdJohnston 21:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Aaron Klein
Ed, I restored the article after the usual anon changes, but could you take the talk page aspect unless it's better ignored? (By the way, I archived the AK section from my talk page and hope it's permanently retired—let's hope yours doesn't become a similar repository!) — Athænara ✉ 01:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Denny Klein
I have launched the stub for International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, but it appears to be considered a respected journal by a few people. I haven't categorised it into Category:Fringe science journals yet because I havent found any sources to justify that, except the "Denny Klein" journal article being a little unexpected.
In the process of digging into the topic, I found another userpage on subject User:Vaughanwj/Aquygen, but that user hasnt been active since November.
Regarding the Afd, I thought that User:Omegatron was doing a decent job of championing the Denny Klein article, but ultimately the BIO had too much emphasis on the technology rather than the person, so it was deleted. At lot of progress was being made on the article, so the closing admin has granted me a temporary boon and the article with history has been moved to User:Javdb/Denny Klein. Jump in and edit it if you find anything of use. John Vandenberg 00:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- fyi, I have written two new articles related to this journal article, Ruggero Santilli and his research group Institute for Basic Research. Of specific interest is the journals published by Hadronic Press which I have touched on in the other two articles. This gents history makes it all the more strange that his paper was accepted into International Journal of Hydrogen Energy unless they really did peer review it thoroughly, or the journal wanted to buy into this controversy. I'll pick this up in the morning. John Vandenberg 14:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is getting interesting. It widens out our view of Santilli's activities. Someone ought to be able to find one or two reactions from mainstream scientists, with enough patience, now that you've gathered the info. Note that 'being nominated for the Nobel Prize' doesn't exist. I tried looking for Ruggero Santilli in Google Scholar. As late as 1980, he was still publishing normal-looking papers in the Physical Review. If we really can't get any feedback from standard science, perhaps we could highlight some of the unorthodox comments that can be quoted from his own work. EdJohnston 17:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica change
I beg your pardon, but the revert was made on an incorrect assumption. But because I fully understand the problems people have with changes being made by unregistered users, I went ahead and mentioned it in the talk page to give it a full chance for deletion on merit (which, apparently, it recieved).
For your future here at wikipedia, I would like to direct you to the official wikipedia policy WP:DR, which deals with content disputes and how they should be resolved. This should have been handled in a much better manner, however I recognize that it was a large part my own fault for not correctly closing a reference tag which made the reference link unusable.
Regardless, though, the issue has been resolved for some time now. Thank you for your time!
128.61.36.21 19:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I understand you could have been ticked off by the suggestion (by the other editor) in the edit summary that your change was vandalism. This comment turned out to be incorrect, since your good faith has been shown. Since you seem able to make positive contributions, I would invite you to create an account, since dialogs with anonymous users are a bit freaky. (It's intuitively hard to convince yourself that there's an actual person there, and not just a protocol address). EdJohnston 20:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:COI/N
OK, that was strange. Not certain how that happened, as wasn't my intention. Thanks for fix. --Sean Martin 05:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Passing the ball?
Gee, thanks a lot! ;)
There is a standing WP:RFCU on those editors and I've protected the article and am monitoring the situation. I agree, this will need to be handled as an admin situation from here on... and I guess I'm the one who jumped on the grenade.--Isotope23 16:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Conservapedia
New sources have been brought up in the DRV. If you could take a second look it would be appreciated.JoshuaZ 19:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking another look. If you don't mind, I was referring to a variety of sources, not just the ones that I specifically mentioned. Dpb and other users also have mentioned a few. JoshuaZ 20:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
No DRV required: just add admin
Well, no, no DRV was needed. WP:DPR says (or rather it said, people keep changing these things when I'm not looking) that a non-admin close of an XfD could be reversed by an admin, for any reason, or for no reason at all, without needing to go to DRV.
The fact is that I only started closing CfDs because it seemed like it needed doing and it's not like there's usually much room for error. Nothing actually gets deleted by the closer anyway. I thought that closing a few CfDs a day would be enough to get it un-backlogged, but it seems that if I close X CfDs a day, the result is not X more CfDs are closed each day. Instead, whoever would have closed those CfDs seems to do something else. I wonder what happens if I stop. Do those CfDs get closed by whoever would have done it before, but doesn't now, or does the backlog get even bigger?
I was in Boston on business (officially, but really a holiday). It was great! If you're ever tempted to leave it for Cincinatti or Dayton, don't. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for explanation. EdJohnston 22:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Logic of Violence in Civil Wars
I got the cover from some editorial website, but Stathis Kalyvas, the author of the book, is my Professor (and friend) here at Yale and I asked him about that and he was embarrased/happy about the fact that I uploaded that entry to the Wikipedia. In that sense, it is a bit weird to see the image being deleted, because I had the greatest of the several ways to get an authorization from the author: in person, directly. :) Can you do something to upload any cover? --poldavo 05:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you have a copy of the book and a digital camera, can you take a photo of it? The rules for uploading are much easier for someone who owns the photo. If you think you might do this, I can supply the additional steps needed. EdJohnston 06:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I will do that as soon as I finish a paper I am working on. The deadline is so close!! Thanks. :) --poldavo 06:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Finding ISBN-10 and company
Hi EdJ! -- No, I don't have any secrets for finding these. I'm just using Google and isolating to en.wikipedia.org. Then I get frustrated since clearing the cache does not reduce the number of hits after I fix a bunch, even after a couple days. (I'm using Mozilla on Windows in case you have any ideas.) Keesiewonder talk 23:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not about ISBNs, but close: Please see this. I've looked high and low and cannot find this information. Can you think of a way of adjusting each of these articles such that the ISSN is not called for? Or, do you think these are candidates for an AfD? If the journals are noteworthy, it shouldn't be so hard to verify them ... Thanks for your thoughts. Keesiewonder talk 01:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Last time I looked, issn.org was offering a temporary 30-day membership for free. Someone who was very devoted could make a list of everything on WP that needs an ISSN, sign up for the temporary membership, and look everything up! I may get around to it eventually. I do suspect that some of these game magazines never bothered to get an ISSN, though. Generally anything that is held in a Worldcat library, if an ISSN exists, they will show it. Somehow games are not noble enought for Worldcat. EdJohnston 01:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- A bit of discussion. Of course, I could still argue that each series of guidebooks does not deserve its own Wikipedia article. Keesiewonder talk 12:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Last time I looked, issn.org was offering a temporary 30-day membership for free. Someone who was very devoted could make a list of everything on WP that needs an ISSN, sign up for the temporary membership, and look everything up! I may get around to it eventually. I do suspect that some of these game magazines never bothered to get an ISSN, though. Generally anything that is held in a Worldcat library, if an ISSN exists, they will show it. Somehow games are not noble enought for Worldcat. EdJohnston 01:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- A little update; at the moment I'm using AWB on a database dump to find ASINs that aren't using the template ... I end up doing most of the editing outside of AWB though. Keesiewonder talk 22:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
ISSN template stuff
Do you have an opinion on this plus this? Keesiewonder talk 20:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input
Thanks for your input on the conflict of interesting Noticeboard. I've updated that entry with a good summary of concerns I have at this point. In short, while Genghis has gone through and cleaned up the majority of pov edits that were made by him, I'm concerned about his continued editing of the article based on several issues.--Crossmr 20:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
| Overflow discussion from WP:COI/N, concerning Ars Technica |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
A bid for your input
This is a sort of begging letter, because I am left speechless by an editor who reverted (see "Student writing staff" section) this version to this version and insisted in an article talk page post that "There is nothing wrong with using a copied list from a website." Help? Some of your characteristic civilised straight-from-the-shoulder policy plain talk? — Athænara ✉ 07:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
| Discussions of CampusJ, Aaron Klein, and Bloodless Bullfighting |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
You may remember the Bloodless bullfighting discussion (now in archive 3) on COI/N. There's an Afd on it. I looked through the archive for the earlier participants and you were the missing one! Not counting the, ah, proponent, whose un-civil and anti-NPA ways tend to intimidate the rest of us. — Athænara ✉ 12:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC) — Whoops, it was already deleted! — Æ. ✉ 12:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
|
SBN
Sounds good; only question I have - I don't really follow ISBN history as closely as some - is regarding SBN in the second sentence ... i.e. SBN, not ISBN? --Keesiewonder talk 09:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, Rich contributed that word with an intervening change that I noticed only after checking in mine. Perhaps it should be spelled out, since Standard Book Number is now a less-familiar term? Interesting to note that SBN is now obsolete the same way ISBN-10 will (we assume) be obsolete one day. SBNs may still be usable, though when you run into one it's very confusing since it looks like a mistyped ISBN. Can you suggest a rewording to make the situation more clear? SBN is explained (though tersely) in the first paragraph of ISBN. EdJohnston 13:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- You could link to the SBN disambiguation page ... or the ISBN page (which mentions SBN till '74) ... or write a blurb for a "Standard Book Number" article and link to that. I guess of those options, I'd vote to link SBN to the ISBN page. Keesiewonder talk 14:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Made an edit to User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult
Ed, I am not the guru in the COI Noticeboard rules, so I guess you know more than me about the customs there. I just provided a tool for them in a hope that it might be useful. Regarding putting human found cases into the bot found I am not sure I like the idea. Human results are much more reliable than the bot's it would be pity if they are lost within the many unreliable bot's data. Theoretically bot could malfunction and overwrite its page instead of just adding staff. It never did it before and the changes are in the history anyway but the human finding might be safer in the noticeboard itself. Alex Bakharev 04:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- I got everything wrong. Of course I do not mind striking out a technical article. The bot put in the list because the author used his nick in an example of the code. The bot got it wrong and you did an absolutely right thing. Alex Bakharev 04:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do you want other editors who investigate these hits to follow the same procedure? If so, some words should be added to the noticeboard as to what to do. I imagine that if something is a real conflict, and the article has problems, then a proper noticeboard entry should be opened up. EdJohnston 16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
COI at Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Article?
Please see:
[[12]].
I saw your commment to Philosophus about TM advocates exhibiting COI on the TM article. While what you said about the difficulties of elminating religious COIs has validity, keep in mind that TM's legal and PR claim is that they are not a religion at all and the Maharishi is not a religious figure, and that issue is also affected by COI. Currently, a TM advocate who has a long time association with the Maharhishi University is claiming that MMY is seen mainly as a secular and scientific figure, and blocking any mention of the controversy around MMY's religious role and relation to his religious tradition and practices, which include the paranormal claims like "yogic flying", as being a manufuctured issue designed by a few to "delegitimize the Maharishi". I think a solid case can be made for COI affecting edits of controversial and critical information at the related MMY article, and that it is difficult to keep NPOV in these TM articles with so much COI edits by backers of the group. Can you give me some advice on how to navigate this issue?--Dseer 17:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Ed, I hate to bother you here again but I ask you to pay close attention to the editing philosophy of the TM folks and not just their pleasant manner. This from Transcendental Meditation (talk) at the bottom about a proposed major revision of the TM and Religion section by TM members, and this is the stated rational for disagreeing with including Mason and the University of Virginia's Religious Movements Hompage [[13]] as a link, and the allowed weights for addressing the controvery about whether TM involves religion:
- I am bound by the article's length. This article has been criticized for its length. I can't build up one bank of the river without building up the other. This will create unmanageable length. I will try to compress some material to shorten the article.I don't feel it should be lengthened given past comments by non-TM editors.
- I feel bound to use some of the original material which I did
- I consider Cardinal Sin to be the most objective source on TM and religion I found, and by far the most expert. His statements are not emotional or personally driven.His statements do not indicate personal involvement. He is a leader in a major Christian religion. This gives his statements weight and authority. I believe this makes him as neutral as is possible so a very strong source.I used some of the material. There is no room for all of it. Anyone who wants more can go to the source. Its clearly marked.
- I am confident in this article's objectivity given its length. I can't say more. Best wishes. (Olive)
- Thanks, Olive. Good points. (TimidGuy).
Ed, I understand you need to stay neutral here, but I hope you agree that article length is not a policy or a guideline and doesn't trump non-negotiable NPOV, it simply requires more concise editing of balanced material. No problem with using some of the original material but the selection and deletion of critical material affects NPOV. A short statement on Catholic bulletin board type site by Cardinal Sin that TM does not absolve sin and is not Christian just isn't the best critical source for the subject at hand, particularly while providing as rebuttal a nice long article by a Catholic Priest to the contrary. Yet TimidGuy agrees. I sincerely hope you and others begin to see the problem COI based interpretations of Wikipedia and decisions about appropriate weight, the sense of article ownership, and the problems fruitless, repetitive discussions on the same points are causing. We desperately need a neutral person with administrative powers to deal with the COI to make Wikipedia work there. Just because the damage is incremental doesn't mean it shouldn't be dealt with once it is documented, IMO.--Dseer 06:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- My objection to the article on the Religious Movements home page is that it was written by two students in a 200-level sociology course and has many spelling, grammar, and factual errors. I've pointed this out to Dseer. The sentence referencing Mason has never been properly cited. Dseer, if you have the book it would be great if you could insert a page number and bibliographic citation. TimidGuy 11:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, Ed. I just realized that the reviews on the publisher's site for the 2005 edition could possibly be reviews of the 1994 edition. For example, it gives a review from Amazon, but I checked Amazon, and that review is indeed for the 1994 edition. Seems like, if we decide that this book is indeed scholarly and unbiased, then we should prefer the 1994 edition, given the limited availability of the 2005 edition and that it's apparently self publihsed. The 1994 copy that I ordered is hardcover, so that's encouraging. Also, the books put out by the publisher of the 1994 edition, although they run toward magic and that sort of thing, are in a similiar vein -- suggesting that it's not a vanity press. Which is encouraging. The info that you found was helpful. One downside is that it's not in many libraries -- about 120 worlwide according to OCLC -- so libraries haven't shown a lot of interest. One litmus test will be if it has an index and the kinds of sources he cites. And how much of his own opinion and agenda he interjects. I'm hopeful that my impressions of Mason are wrong and that this will be a fair and balanced source. Of course, one would prefer a book from a major or university press, but we'll just have to see. Thanks again for pointing me to info about the publisher. TimidGuy 10:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, any chance you've been following the BLP discussions on Wiki-ENl? TimidGuy 10:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw that. Since I have not carefully read Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and I haven't seen the Mason book, I have no idea whether to believe the information contained in it. I'm glad you ordered it, so you'll be able to tell us more about it. I don't know the full story on the Cardinal Sin citation, but the link that I did see, one that claimed to be quoting his words, did not look reliable enough for Wikipedia. EdJohnston 01:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Taking another look at the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi article, it seems to me that the section on the Beatles is reasonably balanced. Since the Beatles' visit to the Maharishi is part of his personal history, and thus part of his biography, I wouldn't mind seeing this edit restored. It looks as though John Lennon's disaffection with the Maharishi was real, even though he might have been given some wrong information.
- One more general comment. Since Mason's book is somewhat hard to find, it may not be a particularly influential source. It ought to be much easier to find articles on TM and the Maharishi in major newspapers and magazines. If there is any well-sourced criticism to be found, some of it could have made its way into those articles. EdJohnston 02:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Great to hear that you're up on the discussion regarding BLP. I realized I could add a phrase regarding Sexie Sadie to the sentence on Lennon believing the rumors, which would be in the spirit of the consensus to not give this undue weight while still including this tidbit. Seems 95% of the TM coverage is positive, related to the research. Maharishi as a person doesn't get much coverage. Maybe Dseer has sources. I'll pass along your point about the Cardinal Sin reference to Olive.
- I had an inspiration yesterday about how to deal with the Maharishi article -- an approach that couple perfectly satisfy opponents, proponents, and Wikipedia policies. The source of my idea was the BLP advice to be understated. It occurred to me that we could simply outline the various things Maharishi has introduced over the years. (Actually, I know someone who's already been planning to do this.) Much of it, like Yogic Flying, would just sound nutty to many people and put Maharishi in a bad light, especially if we could document how expensive it all is. We could simply state the facts. Ironically, this approach would at the same time thrill adherents, who believe these offerings from the Vedic tradition will save the world. And it would satisfy Wikipedia policies because it would be simple facts, well sourced, stated in a neutral way.
- The items would include the TM-Sidhi program (which, when first introduced in the 1970s, promised supernormal powers), Ayurvedic Medicine (which includes diagnosing disease by feeling the pulse), Sthapatya Veda architecture (which is said to promote greater health, happiness, mental clarity, and success for occupants), Maharishi Jyotish (astrology), Maharishi Yagya (the purchase of Vedic ceremonies performed by pandits to assist one's health, prosperity, etc.), and Maharishi Vedic Vibration (healing via the use of Vedic sounds). Each should be short and simply stated and sourced. They would be presented chronologically as Maharishi has introduced them. TimidGuy
Brouhaha
Hi Ed. I've been following your discussion with Orangemarlin on his talk page and determinedly biting my tongue to avoid getting caught up in more discussion with him. Thanks for your sensible comments. I hope you appreciate why I find OM's behavior toward me so offensive and frustrating. I've spent a lot of time and effort trying to improve Evolution and related articles, particularly by trying to limit the neverending battles with creationists so that we can focus on improving the articles. I felt like it was beginning to have a positive impact, so I've been willing to put in the work, but this recent brouhaha is pretty discouraging. It's particularly maddening to constantly be baited to try and prove I'm not a creationist. If doing anything on Wikipedia is going to mean constantly dealing with stuff like this, then, as people in the real world are beginning to remind me, I have much better things to do with my time. Your advice would be appreciated. Gnixon 03:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Tell me you attend secret meetings of the Creationist Cabal after work.. You can tell me here, no-one else will know! EdJohnston 04:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for a dose of the best medicine. :) Gnixon 04:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I tried to be clear that I was suggesting only a reorganization of the sections and headings of Evolution, one that left the content pretty much untouched, not a major rewrite. Gnixon 03:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Crikeys. Please help. Gnixon 04:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Refactoring a Talk page assumes consensus, and others can sometimes object. It would be better if he had asked first, since you put a bit of work into it. This remark from OM's talk page could be a clue:
I used to understand the archives of this page, but I don't currently. If you have done work on the archives, I wonder if you understand what OM is talking about. EdJohnston 04:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)I actually complained about the organization of the discussion. It used to have archives that described previous discussions, so you could refer back to the old archives. I used them to fight some creationists in my children's local school district, and they were quite helpful. I assume that Gnixon has messed up the archives for some good reason, but I can't tell what it is. All I know is that I can no longer find what is going on.
- Yeah, I noticed that. When he brought it up in some other discussion, I wondered if he was blaming me for that older archive disappearing because he'd seen me implementing your hat/hab idea. I seem to remember once upon a time that the page had topical archives (trying to find in history), but they've been gone since at least last July (as far as I've gotten in the history). I was thinking about making a table of links to common discussions in the archives. It's funny---when OM and I discussed the older archives before, I mentioned that I "assumed" someone switched to simple by-date archiving out of laziness. One might conclude that I didn't change the archives but could think of one good reason for doing so. I honestly think there may be some reading comprehension issues involved here. Gnixon 05:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- My guess is that OM is talking about some POV-fork talk subpages like my more recent "Evolution debates" idea. They were listed at the top of the page below the comment:
This talk page is for the discussion of issues related to evolution. If your comment is related to creation science, intelligent design or the relevence of religious views to evolution please post your comment on this talk subpage where discussion of such matters more commonly takes place. You may find that your comment is moved to this subpage if others feel it is of the above nature.
- They were deleted on 3/18/2005 by User:Raul654 with the just the comment "Prune down headers at top of page." Gnixon 05:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think Raul654 was only removing part of the text at the top of the page. To look for all the subpages of Talk:Evolution, this command should work.
- These subpages, the ones that used to be named in the header, really still exist as subpages:
- In fact, there are still 27 subpages besides the archives, so there is even more stuff to look at! EdJohnston 13:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: Your comment at the reference desk about NYT, soy milk and Vitamin D
I could try and send you the file uuencoded (probably too long, though), but I suppose you know a better way of sending files through "E-mail this user" ;-). Rl 17:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sent you an email, so you can reply using your normal email program and attach a binary file. EdJohnston 19:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Univ of Washington project to add photographs to Wikipedia -- WP:EL policy concerns?
Replied on my user talk page -- Jmabel | Talk 05:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
re: email (COI issue)
Unfortunately I have neither the time nor the energy to deal with this at the moment, perhaps over the Easter weekend. I'll probably get them to summarise what they've said so far in 100 words or less and if they can't then we'll close it as hopelessly vague. MER-C 09:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it's worse than I thought. OpenOffice.org 2.0 registers the discussion length at exactly 17 A4 pages long in 12pt font. It appears I need to step in a bit earlier than I thought... MER-C 10:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
re: Juice Plus
Ed, this quote is taken straight from the link that Rhode Island Red published. As I have a COI, I am going to address it here and let you decide what should be done as far as the article and statement of facts that are on it.
"Supplement Facts: On September 23, 1997, FDA published a final rule in the Federal Register implementing the nutrition labeling provisions of DSHEA. As of March 23, 1999, the effective date of the regulation, all dietary supplements must bear nutrition information entitled "Supplement Facts." This labeling is similar to nutrition content labeling for conventional foods but is tailored to the special characteristics of dietary supplements."
Juice Plus+'s Garden, Orchard and Vineyard blends are classified as food which is why their label clearly states "Nutrition Facts". This issue is overlooked by those who are clearly gunning for the product. This isn't opinion, it is fact.
Not sure what if anything should be done about this, but I know I am not the one who is going to do it. Thank you for your time and consideration of this ridiculously and intensely edited article. I think it is save to say that the two sides will never agree and Wiki has become the battlefield. Julia 03:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks much
Hi, Ed. It's a relief that the complaint against me has been archived. In retrospect I'm really embarrassed by it all. I never should have let myself get drawn into such a lengthy exchange. I really appreciate that you took the time to study the situation, and I really appreciated your comments -- both related to the Maharishi article complaint and the earlier Transcendental Meditation complaint. Not sure what the next step is. I guess I'll just continue and hope that things work out. TimidGuy 15:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Navbox collapsed
Hey -- yeah, no template, I just did it by hand. I based it off of the deletion review closing templates, which I think are {{drt}} and {{drb}}, but now that I've seen them, {{hat}} and {{hab}} are really what I was looking for. Mangojuicetalk 16:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)