User talk:Agne27/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Agne27/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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!
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 very shortly to answer your questions. Don't be afraid to ask!
If you would like to experiment with Wikipedia, I invite you to do so in my own personal sandbox (just follow the simple rules!) or in the Wikipedia sandbox.
When you contribute on talk pages or in other areas, it is important to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Again, welcome! — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 00:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and Wine

Greetings, I caught sight of your question about Islam and wine. As I imagine you're aware in Islam consumption of alcohol is generally prohibited. Because this is the case I'm not sure how much information connecting the two you're going to find on Wikipedia but I've prepared this link to hopefully set you off in the right direction for your search. You might check with some of the members of WP:ISLAM or the folks here. Good luck! Netscott 19:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metayage

Métayage and complant are the same. Bailleur and prendeur are used to describe the two individuals under métayage. Also your Bailleur and prendeur articles may belong more appropriately under the Wiktionary. Bejnar 14:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiktionary is multilingual and Wiktionary links are easy: use wikt:word in double brackets like this wikt:word, or wikt:réunion, or wikt:alguacil to link. Wiktionary is at wiktionary.org. See also: Wikipedia:Sister projects

As to métayage, I believe that the term is broader than the usage that you have come across so far. It is used in the French translation of Cato, as well as in the French books (listed in the article) referring to a wide variety of practices, from where the landowner furnishes nothing but the land to where he furnishes everything including the seed and hand tools. From where the landowner has no say in the production, through assisted co-management to almost complete management by the landowner or his bailiff. Bejnar 14:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Wines

Thank you so much for this article and the link. I had heard of the poem but had never seen a text or a summary! Andrew Dalby 11:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Métayage

(Copy:) Hey Andrew, I would love to get your thoughts on how to maybe improve the criticism section of the Metayage article. It's taken very heavily from the 1911 encyclopedia and a book by J.Cruveilhier, Étude sur le métayage Paris (1894) and comes across with a sharp POV slant. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Agne27 16:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Agne27, I have to bow out of this one. I feel warm towards the topic, since (to take the first two footnotes) John Crook taught me and I have translated Cato, but warmth doesn't translate into specialist knowledge. Good luck! Andrew Dalby 18:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support!

Greetings, Agne27. Just a quick note to thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of (67/0/0)! Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have suggestions or requests - either of an admin nature or otherwise! :)

Wknight94 (Talk | contribs) 03:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Misza13's pile!

Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page.
Misza 13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing!

NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated ROT-26 algorithm.
Ability to decipher it indicates a properly functioning optical sensor array.

Alternative closures

The material you've been adding to the Alternative wine closure article is good, but we already have articles for Screwcaps and Synthetic closures. Having extensive discussions of them in a separate article duplicates material or fragments the information across several pages. This isn't desirable, don't you agree? — Saxifrage ✎ 00:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you like German Riesling. This site will give you a first impression about German wines appreciated (for the last time) by the passangers of the Titanic: http://admin.macher.intrinet.de/service/art19,982.html?fCMS=8c2881a72591fd8e205195fcff409c8d

As far as the prices documented by the wine-lists on board of the Titanic are concerned I'm absolutely sure but I can't give a good quote now, because I havent got the book about me where I read it some years ago. I guess it should have been that one: [1], only avaiable antiquarian today [2]

As you might know, the author Frank Schoonmaker ist considered quite reliable - snapshot. I like Burke's Peerage 07:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

post scriptum: 2001 was great, 2002 fine, but in 2003 German wines quite often contained much to much alcool; I doubt if we should describe 2003 as a great Riesling-vintage in general. I like Burke's Peerage 13:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Appreciated

Thanks for responding! I encourage you to continue in the discussion -- the user who has been "stirring the pot" is a former associate who has told me via other channels that his entire intent is simply to sling mud on the project (and me personally) using whatever means necessary (including using wiki resources). At this point I have almost decided to seek and advocate (because I do not have time to fend his effort off singlehandedly). I know you're not a member of the advocate counsel (or whatever it's called), but I welcome the assistance if you are willing to give it. /Blaxthos 13:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help in Understanding (a discourse?) ;-)

Appreciate the objective viewpoint regarding the bash.org article. Please note that I did not approach the village pump with the intent of bringing anyone to the bash.org article -- I specifically did not mention the article because I only want to understand, not to win supporters. I support your call and I have a question about wiki that maybe you can help me understand... Sometimes information relavent to a particular subject is not widely dispursed, and likely to go "undiscovered" were it not for those knowledgeholders contributing their information to wikipedia. In many such circumstances, the relavent information may not be of such earth-shattering importance that one would, say, publish an article or write a book about it. Is this information to be lost?

Allow me to be more specific... I am not the founder of the QDB project, however I have been one of two partners who have run the site for many years. I did not start the wikipedia article on bash.org, however I have contributed my own personal knowledge to the article. In my early wiki experience with the article I admittedly guided existing revisions in the least negative avenue as possible, however only off and on over several years' time (motivated by ignorance of the wiki-way, not intentional misdeed). For the past several months I've gravitated more towards the understanding that many a great deal of wikinfo is either motivated by forces unseen, unverifiable and possibly untrue, and (in most cases) unencyclopaedic and inappropriate for inclusion in the articles.

Long story short (too late!): I would be highly unlikely to publish any sort of document detailing the relavent information about bash.org's history, operation, or future projects. It would be even more unlikely that a primary source would ever publish said information. There are lots of articles on wiki that are about subjects who/that have cult-ish followings (bands, websites, projects, etc). Such subjects are outside the mainstream and unlikely to be written ABOUT. However, there are lots of people around the world who would like to know that information. The information that those "in the know" could share would likely go unpublished and "die with the owner" would it not be contributed to a place like wikipedia...

SO (finally) -- should this info not be included in articles? Does it absolutely always violate NPOV? Without manufacturing artifical "citations" or weasling around the policy, is there any way my info can be included (by myself or others) in a "legal" way. If not (or the old "if people care'd they'd write about it"), is the wiki policy the best solution to make "all the worlds' knowledge available to everyone"?

Thoughts are jumbled right now, so sorry if it's confusing. Any help in understanding would be appreciated.

/Blaxthos 02:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote!

Here's a little appreciation for helping to keep the gaymer article alive (at least for the moment!). I'm glad I have your support on this issue, and hope the page continues to grow with the help of other fine wikipedians.

"Jim" v "Hawkins"

I see from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Hawkins&diff=70420682&oldid=70398100 that you are suggesting that surnames ONLY should be used in articles. I can't find this in WP MOS, could you show me where please?

I picked three names at random - David Beckham, Pete Sampras and Nigel Mansell - all three have references to them using their firstnames, this makes it more readable IMHO. MikesPlant 14:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if the subject himself is editing own entries to change formal US naming to informal UK naming (as deduced from thorough checking of the history from his British Broadcasting Committee IP address) and in show biz he is referred to more often by informal christian name used on the program (like Kylie or Madonna), then we should stick by his wishes, especially seeing full history of his disquiet with wiki? Triviajunkie 23:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this from my talk page as I think it sits better here:

I agree that the Manual of Style should be more clear but there is several references to writing in a formal tone, which proper usage would dictate that surnames be used for adults as George previously mentioned in the Hawkins history. First names are wholly informal and they give a false impression of "Buddy-buddyness" between the reader and the subject. (as if the subject gave us permission to call him by his first name). On some levels, it is considered disrespectful and an intrusion to automatically assume a first name basis. Especially in light of Wikipedia's history with the subject, who has stated quite clearly his disfavor, a respectful and formal tone is the only proper course. Agne 21:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Triviajunkie has expressed my thoughts pretty well, so I'll leave it at that MikesPlant 13:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked out MoS (biographies)quite thoroughly I see that it states for subsequent use of names: "After the initial mention of any name, the person may (my embolding) be referred to by surname only". So all this stuff I've been reading about it being law, isn't not true. I commend Agne27 for trying to get consensus on this one - my vote is as Triviajunkie states, he's in showbiz and is referred to as 'Jim Hawkins' not 'Hawkins' (which I have to agree does sound very derogatory, but perhaps things are viewed differenly outside the UK) in his publicity material - so my vote is let's change it to 'Jim Hawkins' as a half-way house. Telemaketr 15:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT

No, they don't. If you bypass your kneejerk reaction and analyze the edits, they're completely in line with policy -- even 100% reasonable according to your own. I'm not illustrating a point, I'm following suit. -Markusbradley 19:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, my edit summaries are pretty tame. cite needed, eliminate, quotes are not recently submitted, and the other three are completely factual and to the point. The initial edit has what maybe, possibly, perhaps be construed as you say, but the rest.. no. I appreciate your desire to be an overzealous hall monitor, and I thank you for looking out for the article and wikipedia in general, but it's really unnecessary in this case. -Markusbradley 19:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the uncomfortably weird untruths below, I came back here to genuinely say thanks for your efforts with Bash.org. While initially undesirable, I think the push for NPOV and citations helped to improve the quality of the article. I'm amending my wikipedia philosophy to include more emphasis on citations and neutral tone, which I think are good things. -Markusbradley 19:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bash.org

can you believe this guy? he is obviously using whatever methods he can to cause static re: bash.org. i'm not really clued enough to know what the proper steps to get this debacle resovled is... can you offer assistance? plz delete upon reception, contact in another method (AIM/yahoo: blaxthos) /Blaxthos 05:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't delete talk page comment. I'm monitoring the article and so far I see nothing alarming. I really don't think Wikipedia is the place for disagreements at bash.org to be played out. My recomendation is to step back and let it be. There is nothing deflamatory about bash.org in the article that would call for a pressing response. Let the dust settle.Agne 16:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

don't you think it's a little rediculous (sp) -- not to mention multiple WP:POINT voilations -- that this ex-moderator of bash.org has made it his life's work to cause problems? i left it alone for over a week, and he continues to delete as much information as he can. i don't want anything but a factually accurate, neutral article. i have never thought wiki was the place for the criticism/response portions, but there is plenty of accurate, factual, and in many cases referenced information that this kid is removing to either (a) cause problems or (b) make a point regarding "hall monitors." let's not forget his tone and obvious intent to "rock the boat" too. this isn't about bash.org article, or wiki policy -- to this guy, it's because he lost out on something that eventually became popular. i have plenty of OOB AIM longs with him where he blatantly admits to only using wikipedia as a means to an end -- annoying/irritating anyone who cares about bash.org. petty & childish...

i asked for it to be deleted because there is no "private" option for wiki mail, afaik. /Blaxthos 17:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re deletion of Edmund Nelson

If you indeed feel that a review is in order, please let me know. The deletion process had enough time, in my view, and the consensus was to delete, even with the portrait. Having a portrait of oneself in a museum and/or by a famous artist is not an indication of notability, but at most an indication of the notability of the painter (or the technique). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GA Indonesia

Hey there how are you going? Thanks for reviewing Indonesia at WP:GA. Honestly, since I joined Wikipedia, you are the best reviewer I've ever seen and I'd like to say many thanks for it. So I guess I, or we, better get to work. Okay, can I get back to you again when I have questions about the comments? Cheers, take care -- Imoeng 22:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. For the last one hour, I've been searching for references, ahahah. Also, I am pretty sure those are verifiable and reliable. Could you take a look at it now and tell me what you think. I mean, whether its enough or not. I'm still looking for those under the Ethnic groups section, its really hard to find. Cheers -- Imoeng 00:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Indonesia[reply]

WP:GA on Ram Vaswani

Hi there. Thanks for taking the time to review the article on Ram Vaswani. I appreciate the amount of time members of the project take in reviewing these.

In regards to your points about reliable sources:

I would like to suggest that The Hendon Mob tournament links can be considered reliable sources. As Vaswani is one of the members of The Hendon Mob itself, then surely all the information on the site can be considered reliable? (In fact, Robert Butt is an employee of Vaswani.) Links to the Hendon Mob Database are also used in previously-passed GA candidates Joe Beevers, Barny Boatman and Mike Matusow. Further to this, the Hendon Mob's database is by far the most complete poker results database on the web, as many others, including the ones online at Card Player and PokerPages ignore the majority of European results. It is also used by professionals worldwide; is frequently referenced from poker discussion forums including 2+2; by TV broadcasts including ESPN's coverage of the World Series of Poker and by publications including Poker Player Magazine.
The articles by Joe Beevers are also published on The Hendon Mob site. I feel this can be considered an article rather than a blog, even if it is in diary format.
The Card Player Magazine article was published in print worldwide, and the online version is just an archived copy.
I presume there are no issues with the references to which Vaswani is the author. Essexmutant 01:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Just a quick update on this. I have also now tried to tidy up the references so they are not always at the end of the paragraph. I have also expanded the introduction to assert notability, and have described the origins of his nicknames. Hope this helps! Essexmutant 02:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Matusow good article

Hi Agne,

After some consideration I still stand by my decision to promote Mike Matusow.

Most of the article's personal details come from Poker Player Magazine's Me and My Big Mouth - an interview which presumably remains faithful to what Matusow said. The Hendon Mob references are used largely to report the way particular tournaments have played out something that is less likely to be exposed to rumour.

I imagine it may be difficult to find authoritative references about modern poker players so I am quite comfortable with the choice of references. I also view the good article standard as a more relaxed standard compared to featured articles so that is probably why the issue of reliable sources concerns me less with good articles.

Cedars 05:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hendon Mob

Agne - It's my pleasure. Keeping wikipedia up to quality standards will ruffle feathers, but those feathers are well worth ruffling. I must admit I didn't realize that the Hendon mob website was being used for anything other than tournament results when I chimed in. I haven't had a chance to look at the relevant parts of the site to see what I think yet. When I do, I'll add my comments to the relevant talk pages. Thanks again for your hard work! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hendon Mob again

My pleasure. Although we disagree here, I like to think I'm one of the more civil members of the Wikipedia community. Essexmutant 06:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia GA comment

Hey again, how are you? Sorry for keep bothering you with this article, heehehe. So, this is your comment, "An area of considerable need for expansion is History prior to the 18th century. There is the link to the main article of History in Indonesia but that link is not meant to replace everything. Rather it's meant to provide more in-depth information on key events and topics that is approached in this article. In a way you can visualize it as a thumbnail or summary presentation that will wet the reader's appetite to want to read more about the subject matter. I would review the History in Indonesia article for more key points that can be added here.. I'd like to improve it now, but I don't really understand what you were saying, and where did you get the number "18". I've checked History of Indonesia but I couldn't find anything related or pointing out the 18th century. You help is greatly appreciated. Take care -- Imoeng 09:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Concern about the GA status of Joe Beevers

I have considered your comments, and Joe Beevers should probably be delisted. I would support such a delisting.--Esprit15d 13:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if we can leave this till the resolution of the discussion I raised at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. I had already resolved the issues with the lead section, and have just merged the trivia points into the main article. Essexmutant 17:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Boatman

I would just like to quickly point out that Ross Boatman, which followed a similar formatting to the other articles has just been passed through GA. Essexmutant 17:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The King's Regiment (Liverpool)

Hi, thanks for the notification! I appreciate the comprehensivw review you gave, and I'm relieved the only issue raised was image tags ;-) (tis the mood of wikibreak!). I've resolved that issue, replacing the deprecated PD tags with the standard. Again, thanks! SoLando (Talk) 05:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA process

Uh... no.. they dont... I have not edited that article, therefore I am an independent editor. Stop trying to distort the GA process. 4.249.0.240 16:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Your rationale for removing the GA sure changed quickly. Wikipedians can remove the GA when they believe the article does not meet the GA merits. However, given your original stated reason for removing it, you can not remove the GA template. I suggest you get another editor, other than Chacor, to remove it. 4.249.0.240 16:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted that edit once so I guess if I revert two more times, I'll consider your thinly veiled threat that I should beware of WP:3RR. While deliberately misrepresenting Wikipedia policies may work with new editors, it won't with me. I suggest you leave me alone before you dig yourself into a bigger hole. 4.249.0.240 16:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of it, yes. I'm watching the talk page. Cheers. – Ch acor 16:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how to appear friendly

regarding Agne's Statement: "Jannie, I'm more of a friend then you believe and I don't want you to take my comments as an attack. But in the kindest way possible, I have to say that I don't think your comments on AfD is helping your goal of keeping the Toby Meltzer article. Yes there are "politics" to AfD just as there are politics to every other aspect of life (From PTAs to work to family politics). Sometimes with the "fringe votes", it comes down to which side appears more sympathetic and if appear to be hostile to even the very process you are going to steer people into advocating for delete or not even commenting at all. Secondly, I do think you need to re-consider your claims about my ignorance about Andrea James and maybe re-read the comment that is right above yours where I note that I did drop an FYI note on Jokestress page but my intention was to get her help in improving the article to make his notability sufficiently clear. Agne 02:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)"

In my opinion, one of the ways to be a friend is to act like a friend consistently. For example, your comments in the Meltzer AfD section were entirely unfriendly and needed to refuted. Some times one of the ways for someone in your situation to act like a friend is no say nothing rather than make the unfounded comments you did. I have grown to believe that it is important to cite people exactly as I cited them. I DO NOT take kindly to being accused of plagiarism! That fact the Meltzer AfD is out of bounds should be obvious. I do not consider is politically expedient to "cau tau" in such circumstances. In any event, thus far there are plenty of Keep votes for the article. I have cached a copy in case things go negatively. Just as there is an AfD, it would be a first, if I were to simply re-create the new and improved article later. If you want to apopear friendly, I would suggest that you consider the statements that you make twice as carefully as you seem to think it is your place to tell me that I should carefully consider mine. You may want to take more time to consider how I might respond to what you write.janniejdoe 19:53 17 September 2006

Toby Meltzer AfD

Thanks for the alert-- I brought up a couple of arguments for inclusion. Looks like it should survive. Jokestress 06:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Svidersky review

Hi Agne27, as one of the 'nameless' editors you mention in your review, I would like to thank you for the very thorough analysis. It sounds very objective and balanced, and I think I speak for both myself and Tyrenius (the other and main contributor) that we would like to work on improving the article according to your suggestions. I personally accept or can live with most of your recommendations. Hopefully once we are done with the changes we can have you glance at it again. Thanks again, Crum375 18:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Crum375 in thanking you for the time to do the review and your balanced fairness in doing so. I am not sure about some points, which I present below. Your response would be much appreciated.

From the outset it is recognised that only the phenomenon of the reaction to her death makes it encyclopedic. I have taken the view that the curious reader will then want to know more things about this person, which do not seem necessarily strictly applicable to the notability, but are either something that will interest the reader, or, in fact, do actually have a relevance.

In this respect, her character would seem to be key, and so certain aspects of this have been stated, as in "fun loving". I should say such statements are not OR or MySpace statements, but aspects which press reports chose to print. A lead has been taken from the press reports as to what personal information is relevant to include, and I am not sure that you are aware that this is the source of them, or whether, even so, you consider that this makes a difference. My argument is that we should not include items out of sentiment, nor should we be averse to including them out of a fear of sentiment, which is something that is integral to the subject (i.e. the subject of mass mourning being catalysed). If we do not show aspects of her character which would be the thing that the mourners responded to (and which the press highlighted) then it will not allow the understanding of how this came about. I would also stress that there has been no direct conclusion drawn as to exactly what has affected people: the reader is presented with the facts and left to draw their own conclusion.

If, for example, we leave out the epithet "fun loving", then less information about her is available to the wiki reader than is availabe to the newspaper reader, and I believe we need to reflect the information that is in the public domain accurately. I defend the second paragraph of the background section, as it is simply a NPOV reflection of the material that the press highlighted about her. There has thus not been a POV preference exercised to not include this.

Again "last words" and the mother's interaction are also items the press reported. This is a difficult decision, as normally such material might be indulgent editing, but in this case, such information is key to understanding the phenomenon. Perhaps it could be reformulated, but it is such details and circumstances that were presented in the public domain that provided the mass mourning catalyst.

I feel the MySpace section is essential for the reader to gain an understanding of what led to the mass reaction, as it is precisely these details that initially did so. It gives an insight into the personality to which people responded. There have been a hundred other MySpace deaths with no equivalent effect.

In Aftermath, the "Shelby" tribute is merely an example of the typical reaction. If we are saying there is a reaction, it seems to me the best way to show that reaction is to quote the exact raw nature of it, rather than a remote interpretation into abstract nouns. Alex Milnes appears purely courtesy of The Guardian. They reported his reaction. The article simply reflects their choice of what is notable to cite, not the wiki editor's choice as such. Perhaps it should be stated that The Guardian said this about Alex Milnes, but this seems to me an unnecessary safeguard.

YouTube and MySpace are only used as references about themselves, and thus the usage seems to me to be following guidelines. YouTube statistics are quoted. Material is quoted from the MySpace page. I think we can accept this is genuinely her MySpace page, as this is the basis of the whole article and all the media reports.

Re. broad coverage - why/how. I think that was where there was a fear of OR that stopped interpretation of the available data to make such explanations! Guidance would be useful here.

NPOV. As I have stated earlier, I contend this article has been written from a NPOV, and it is only this that has forced the inclusion of certain details about her life and personality. NPOV refers to the wiki editor, not to the reported subjects. Thus if a newspaper makes a report of someone's POV (in this case that she was a fun loving person or whatever), it follows editorial NPOV to report that POV. Perhaps it is seen as an editorial comment that she is fun-loving, but it is not. It is a faithful reflection of secondary sources and is tightly referenced.[3]

I see the importance, as you have stated, of getting it right, and contend that in the aspects above, we have actually got it right, though I see how this might easily appear not to be the case.

Thanks again. Please feel free to copy any relevant aspects of this to the article talk page, if you wish to answer it there.

Tyrenius 19:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on the above. I have responded to them. However, this may be going beyond the call of duty for you, as I'm sure you have many articles to look at. If this is the case, I do not expect any extensive answer. I believe, though, that there are valid considerations that may demand a specific take on this article, and maybe others if similar conditions apply. Tyrenius 00:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I have appended an update of what now seem to be the key points. Tyrenius 00:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right to a voice on schools

Sorry to bother you, but you are a member of AIW and I have to appeal to you for help. Deletionists are trying disenfranchise those of us who believe that all established and verifiable secondary schools are significant enough to be kept or at least merged. If you agree that it is not an "aburd" belief to hold, please give your opinion here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_22#Finger_Lakes_Christian_School Kappa 22:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ducklings

Thanks so much!! Those comments really cheered me up, I feel really good about the work that was done :) Judgesurreal777 01:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fact tags for McMaster University

I am sorry, but I think you are over using fact tags. Some claims are explained in the sentence itself. Such as "The McMaster marauders has shown itself as one of the strongest in Canada" where you then put a fact tag WHEN the sentence supports with evidence that it has earned four consecutive several Yates cup victories. The claim is supported with evidence and there it is! You can CITE it has won the cup victories but you cannot cite it is a strong team. It is a strong team BECAUSE it won such and such awards. This is the logic behind many of the claims on the page.

Some claims however, are hard to backup with citations and people just have to give the benefit of the doubt. It is near impossible to find sources for "Men's football at McMaster is one of the school's most popular spectator sports, supported extensively by students, faculty and McMaster president Peter J. George." You would know this is true if you are a student there but how is it possible to find other websites that show this? And even if there was, what would you be looking for? I.e. he donates money or something?

"During weekends, many students enjoy going to local pubs in the surrounding Westdale Village area or enjoy a party in the student housing on one of the many streets near the campus." Please tell editors how this can be cited. This isn't a fact. It is something you have to believe as it falls under student life section.

Moreover, "McMaster has pioneered a number of programs which change how professors teach and learn" that is a given fact and Problem based learning has an article itself on Wikipedia.

There are still others I find odd but I am not bothering to put everything here so it seems to clutter up your talk page. Hope you understand my points. 219.77.171.127 02:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. Keep in mind the policy of WP:OR (particularly synthesis) and WP:V. Agne 02:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki truth

It's been around since early April. I would just grin and bear it for now. Not worth paying attention to. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What really angers me about wikitruth is how they talk out of both sides of their mouth...constantly. Their main crux is that Wikipedia censors information and has become some sort of cult of rogue admins. And yet they post things like this which argue that censorship is ok and needed. It's like...which is it? Just not worth our bother, honestly. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! And they have next to zero accountability. Unless it's changed in the last few weeks, they literally have *one* email address that they can be contacted at. And you have to post the troll-like "Tell the Wikitruth!" to get an account. It's much more secretive than Wikipedia will ever be. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GA review for Joseph Hazelwood

Thank you for taking the time to write such an extensive review of the Joseph Hazelwood article. It was fairly difficult finding details about the subject, especially his youth and family. The article has low traffic and I didn't get much feedback. I certainly appreciate your kind comments. Thanks. --Dual Freq 23:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GA review for Hubble's Law

You need to say how many inline citations are required. Vague responses are not appreciated. There are currently two. How many more are needed? Reply on Talk:Hubble's law--ScienceApologist 01:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

(within Metric expansion of space specifically, but I imagine that the following remarks are valid elsewhere too)

Please read this. Very briefly, I as a (distinctly!) non-expert suggested that the ideas presented in this article are now mainstream within physics; the interested person can therefore make his or her own choice of mainstream physics book for verifying or reading more about it. The (apparently) expert editors seemed to agree. Meanwhile, the original physics research papers would be hugely too difficult for any but a minuscule percentage of WP readers; the tiny number of people who can read them would not be reading WP articles about the subject. -- Hoary 08:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to the above dispute, I concur. Please note my comments there. I would weigh in on the talk page at the GA space, but the argument is already long and any additional reflections I have would probably only add to the noise. But this article highlights the problem with having a rigid citation rule. The subject matter is arcane to uninformed readers, but to scientists, the discussion is quite elementary and fundamental. It is like requiring a citation that the sun rises in the east. I worry that the effect of applying WP:CITE blindly can lead to an amateurish presentation of subjects that will sponsor laughs from an informed reader; in other words, out of place for a serious encyclopedic project. (Don't misunderstand me though: generally, citation is hugely important.) Also, citations are not always good citations. I failed the GA nom for Marcel Proust in part b/c the works cited were woefully inadequate. Having a cite policy that reqires x or y number, however, may lead reviewers to feel that material has passed some kind of verifiability test, even when the cited sources would lead an informed reader of the subject to look askance. Eusebeus 14:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur. I think the way you are going about demanding vague numbers of inline references on GA pages is outrageous and you should consider stopping. --ScienceApologist 17:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hirohito

Hi, I simply do not understand your comment about "in line citations" in the article. This text has more citations and references than any article on Wikipedia...

--Flying tiger 14:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA article posts

I find many of your posts to GA articles regarding WP:CITE to be inflammatory, not well-considered, and in very poor taste. Offering helpful criticisms like "please include references for the following facts:" is appreciated. Counting inline references without evaluating the content is not good editorial practice, is unhelpful to the editors of the articles, and smacks of bean-counting rather than thoughtful editting. I am asking you to remove your comments that you have made to articles you think are in danger of losing GA status or, failing this, make a reasoned and thought-out explanation of your criticisms rather than the stock phrasing which is prejudicial and heavy-handed. Simply whining that there "aren't enough in-line citations" is a very poor way to further your cause of bringing better references to articles. There is no minimum number of in-line citations that need to be in any article, so pretending otherwise is unhelpful and borderline rude. --ScienceApologist 17:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The notice is only meant to be a friendly heads up that a full review is coming and to give time to prepare. It is not a full review in itself, which with the article's current state, would probably result in a de-listing. I think it's most everyone's desire to keep good articles rather then de-list them which is why the heads up is coming. I think there would be more agitation if you woke up one morning and found the article that you worked so hard on was suddenly de-listed due (in part) to a tightening in criteria. We have no desire to drop anything out the blue, hence the time and effort that is going into giving the articles due notice. It simply being fair. Agne 17:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review should be an open process subject to the discussion of contributors and neutral arbiters. It should not be acclaimed from "on-high" as you are doing. De-listing from GA is a straightforward process and happens not immediately but after discussion is had. So insinuating that someone would have "removed" these articles is really a red herring. If you are going to start a formal review, start a formal review, but don't make vague threats.

Counting references by this vague unspoken standard is not what makes a good article. You claim that you are just trying to use WP:CITE, WP:RS, and WP:V to see whether articles are good or not. However, what you are really doing is counting the number of inline references and if they meet some magic number (I'm thinking it's about half-a-dozen) then you don't post. This is bean-counting, it isn't helpful editting. You didn't make any effort to evaluate the quality of the references or to decide if more references really are needed for the article to be good. This is arbitrary threats and is very unhelpful to the community.

If you are warning that a full-review is coming, it needs to be contextualized. Saying that there "aren't enough in-line citations" is a poor reason for removing a good article and flies in the face fo the consensus reached about good articles in the first place. --ScienceApologist 17:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SA, I may or may not be the particular GA reviewer who does the re-review on your articles. What you interpret as threats is simply a notice. My only purpose is to make you aware of a criteria change that will affect the GA status of the article. It was a Good Faith effort to bring the criteria and the change to the editors attention and to give them ample time to look at the article and see how it stacks up. In futher Good Faith, I pointed out that area that will need the most attention. (In this case the lack of in-line citations). The number of in-line citations is only the number needed to statisfy wP:V. If, in your assessment as an editor, the number an article currently has is fine...then okay. Leave it as so. However, your article may very well be de-listed when a full re-review is giving. My only desire is to make you aware of that. I do have to say your remarks are quite incivil and I recomend you assume more good faith and maybe take a moment to cool down. Agne 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to consider whether or not WP:V says anything about the number of inline citations needed to satisfy it. I certainly cannot find anything in that policy that seems to indicate this. Every article is subject to GA review, so singling out articles that you think are particularly vulnerable seems to me to be based more on prejudice than it does on thoughtful consideration of the editors involved. You keep saying that this is a "friendly notice" but it doesn't read that way. Instead what it seems to be is a statement that there is some unspoken standard for how many in-line citations are necessary for a good article. You are claiming that there is a "changed" criteria, but didn't reference this nor can I find evidence of it easily.

As far as the warning is concerned, I am trying to convey to you the magnitude of this issue and why I find your activities to basically be problematic. This isn't an issue of good faith, I assume you are trying to do what is best, but I'm telling you that what you are doing is not helpful because it is too vague and is not based on reasoned consideration of article content, review history, or previous talkpage discussions. You respond that it is only a "friendly notice" that there is impending review, but what purpose does this serve? As far as I can ascertain, a review itself is a notice that there may or may not be issues with an article. If there is some external discussion taking place, let it be known, but I find these actions disruptive and a bit presumptuous, thus the warning. It's only meant to convey my utter disgust with your opaque reasonings, but if you don't like to see your talkpage have a redhand on it, I'll remove it.

If there is a "consensus" that the standards of GA may be changing so that these articles you are listing may not be qualified, then why not let us know where that discussion is taking place so we can affect consensus? Coming down from on-high and putting articles on notice is not very opensource or wiki.

--ScienceApologist 18:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as another GA reviewer, who has notified a couple articles about the change in the inline requirement - what Agne was doing was informing articles that might not meet the new standards. Articles are being reviewed, and in some cases being delisted for not meeting requirement 2b. She was essentially trying to let editors of pages that might not meet the new standards, about those new standards. Rather than to bring them up to a review (which could be seeing, at least to me, as accusing the article of not being "good"). It was a heads up notice, not a warning or an attack.

If your problem is with the inline citation requirement, then that should be taken up with the GA project, and not with the editor who was informing you of the consensus that they reached. She was not coming down from on high, just informing you of a consensus. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 18:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you are failing to see is that the consensus is based on a simple counting of references and not evaluating articles. If this editor wants to evaluate the content of the articles, let her. But please don't start making vague "notifications" about what articles "might not" do. Consensus must happen as part of a review process and if these articles were up for review, I'm confident that the absurdity that is requesting inline citations for uncontested general science articles would be put quickly to rest. --ScienceApologist 20:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the rub

If you want to tag articles that have zero in-line references, that's fair. But to tag articles that have more than zero is unfair since it isn't clear that articles such as Hubble's law and Metric expansion of space fail criteria 2b. They have inline references after all. If you think that a number more than the two inline references each of these articles have is required then propose making the criteria more clear. But right now, it looks like you are making arbitrary decisions about what constitutes a "lack" of inline references. That's what I'm upset about. --ScienceApologist 20:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made my request here and would appreciate a response. --ScienceApologist 20:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really wierd stuff that an anon randomly put onto my talk page =

Introduction: How to play Wikipedia

If you do not believe in the healthy spirit of competition and that collaborative editing is the best way to improve Wikipedia, then I suggest you do not read this article.

Always follow NPOV

Be first

Don't let people suppress the information you have to share. It doesn't matter what you have to say, as long as you say it right.

Edit articles that are missing your information

The best choices are articles that are not edited all too frequently. Republicans are always hanging out at the George W. Bush so it will take a lot of bickering, detailed knowledge and time to improve that article. Start somewhere else that is equally lacking in your perspective.

Get someone else to trigger the 3RR

Don't revert NPOV changes made by other people. Instead, make your own changes that other people will want to revert. Then, you can report them for violating 1RR or, even better, 3RR.

Phrase statements in a neutral manner to be NPOV

Use "some argue"^[1]^[2]. Note the difference between the following two statements:

POV: George W. Bush is a terrorist.
NPOV: Some argue that George W. Bush is a terrorist.

The first statement is clearly POV and should be immediately deleted. But, the second is a paragon of impartiality and a neutral point of view. When "some argue" doesn't feel right, try using "many critics". "Concerns about" also works quite well. Make up your own once you get better at it. Here are some examples:

Google is the best way to cite

Cite your sources. For example, I wanted to cite the above sentence (which was already NPOV, but let's say someone disputed that anyone had said that). Well, Google proves them wrong! Haha!

in article: Some argue that George W. Bush is a terrorist. <ref>http://www.nogw.com/ - "George W. Bush - Terrorist in the White House"</ref>
in references: <references/>

Diversions

It's important to divert attention from any edit you make so partisans won't be able to suppress your information. One good way to do this is to make a series of edits, especially mixing in some grammar and spelling fixes. Putting a minor edit on top can't hurt, so do that too. A lot of people just check the top edit.

Be nice

Always be painfully nice to anyone who disagrees with you. Remember, like any game, the point is to let the other team foul more often than you foul. If you have conviction and belief in your edits, someone who doesn't will probably get angry at you because they failed to suppress your information. And someone who is angry is much less likely to get in your way.

Blocking

It's always important to bring in a neutral third party, ideally a friend, to block anyone the moment they violate a rule. Once they've been blocked, it will be very hard for them to suppress your information.

Page protection

If you have gotten the article just right in an edit war, it's a good idea to stop anyone from making further changes that will change it from being NPOV to POV. Quickly hop on IRC (#wikipedia on irc.freenode.net) and ask a neutral third-party to protect the page, ideally someone who hasn't been following the edit war so you can get them to protect the right version.

Don't own up to your philosophy

Whoever you voted for, whatever you believe, don't put it into your User page. All it's going to do is encourage someone from the other side to stand overlord over your pages. Seriously, what will it buy you? It's better to hide the real you, whatever it is. This place is not about being honest about who you are.

From #wikipedia:

[8:57pm] <ambi2> these userboxen are informative.
[8:57pm] <ambi2> i just found that *another* user i previously respected is a right-wing asshole.

Pick examples with care

Let's say you are writing an article that includes some amount of criticism. Yes, you could use negative examples from both sides, but it would make your point better to use related examples many times. It's only more confusing to switch around and use examples from "both sides". Likewise, so-called counterbalancing points will only obscure matters.

Deletion is a clue as to your position

If you create a new article, and someone attempts to get it deleted, then there is probably a reason for it, probably even a policy. Do not let so-called "reason" get in the way of your new article. It is not your fault that people are unable to get the point of what you are trying to say. If they succeed, you can always recreate the article and try naming it something else. It isn't your fault that people are unable to follow your advanced thinking.

God

Due to a protracted edit war over whether God is male, female, another undefineable gender, or no gender at all the page is locked. for this reason we can not reveiw in line citations at this time. Cheers. Emperors Harbinger 03:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About keeping Monty Python in "good" status

Hi, I am currently trying to work on the MP article to help keep it as "good article". Moving trivia to where it belongs is rather easy, if no reverts show up. One thing that is hard, is finding citations, since there is a big number of users who have contributed. Can you please help indicate where citations might save the day? I am not very experienced in it, but could try to find out who has edited the part and ask them to cite their sources. At least if they don't respond, I could attempt to trim these parts. You also don't mention anything about the article's excessive length. Isn't this a decisive criterion? -Hoverfish 07:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Indonesia

Hi how are you? Its about the article, again, d'oh! Heheheh. So we've somewhat have "fulfilled" the issues and I want you to take a look at it. And if possible, (tell me the chance of it to pass GA), hehehe. About the earlier history, I've put a brief, very brief explanation in the first section. About the muslim population, its under the religion section. Citations? I'm full already!! Hehehhe. Cheers -- Imoeng 11:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pleaseeeee :P Cheers -- Imoeng 12:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Another subheading)

Hello Agne, hope u're fine. On wikipedia de I found quite a good stub about [Einzellagen and Großlagen] which could be very usefull for anglosaxons to get a clue about how to identfy great German wines and distinguis it from impostors. You might need the help of a person who speakes German and English as a native speaker if you try to make it an english lemma. I like Burke's Peerage 14:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE & Hubble's law

Hi Agne, in the wake of citationgate (and let me say immediately that I think you areacting entirely in good faith!) I looked at the tagging you did on the Hubble article. I think your approach is flawed. The article is mostly a summary of stuff that is universally accepted among physicists. I appreciate your impulse to let the lay reader evauluate the authority of the article, but ultimately, anyone that is well-grounded in physics will recognise that the article is generally very solid while non-specialists will not be helped by citation-mongering. Instead, it would serve to make the article look like an undergraduate term paper (look! here's some stuff I found out about Hubble's law!). I think that for basic aspects of a topic, providing such citations is inappropiate and the vast majority of your flags would fall under that category. Ideally, the GA process itself should be sufficient to provide authority to the article; namely, it has been reviewed and evaluated by people knowledgeable on the subject and thus the lay reader can assume (as a GA) that it is accurate in the information it provides. John Locke's old saw about appealing to authority, in other words. Eusebeus 17:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. The tagging that was done there and at Special relativity is amateurish and unhelpful. No discussion was made about what would qualify as a good reference for the "facts" that were requested nor was there any attempt to determine what was common knowledge. This is exactly the kind of heavy-handed reviewing based on gut-feelings rather than careful research I was warning about earlier. There are now real stirrings from the science crowd to fork from Wikipedia over this ridiculous hounding. You are making things worse. I suggest you stop interacting with this issue altogether. --ScienceApologist 17:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well as a layperson, I am amateur. How am I to verify this info and know that it is not original research? In it's current state the articles make no consideration for readership that does not already "know these are facts". You kindly requested percision and I laid out what would be of most help to a layperson for verification and to alleviate WP:OR concerns. Your response to that is quite telling. Agne 19:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you can't verify a physics article in all cases. All authors hope and aim for the goal, that even a layperson can profit and draw knowledge from a physics article, but this doesn't necessary imply, that a layperson would be able to verify the article. Reading the textbooks given in the references section may help.

IMHO WP:V asserts that contributors can control each other, and it will also help external reviewers with domain knowledge.

But the idea that inline-citing will give even a previously uninformed reader the chance to do the verification himself, doesn't work. For one, on controversion topics, you will be able to write very different (and very misleading) articles, where every statement is backed up by a citation -- just by carefull selection of sources. A previously uninvolved layperson wouldn't be able to spot the POV-pushing without doing further work searching for other sources. Global warming comes to my mind. Or a lot of articles about Category:New religious movements.

Pjacobi 19:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How am I to verify this info and know that it is not original research? The short answer is: take a relevant physics class or check out a textbook listed in the reference section. The information may be stated differently, but when it is elementary, it makes no sense to ask for in-line citations. Citing individual texts is problematic anyway as it would be a tacit endorsement of a particular treatment of the subject. Wikipedia is in the business of endorsing its own treatment of the subject according to WP:V. It's not in the business of endorsing specific textbooks. --ScienceApologist 21:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious now about the standards of different articles types. It's clear that the standards of Special Relativity is different from the standards J. R. R. Tolkien is held to. As a reader if there is an important claim, the expectations for WP:V (and to alleviate WP:OR concerns) is that there be a link to reliable source. The overwhelming response of the science/math folks is that those key tenets of bedrock Wikipedia policies don't apply. As a reader who doesn't have a science degree, I can not look at the comment in Hubble's law "A value for q was measured from standard candle observations of Type Ia supernovae was determined in 1998 to be negative which implied, to the surprise of many astronomers, the expansion of the universe is currently "accelerating"" and know WHERE and BY WHOM that this happened? I think this a significant lack of consideration for the reader. It comes down to either you need to go get a science degree or just set aside WP:V and any concern you might have about WP:OR after reading all the "we's" in Special Relativity. I don't think that is very fair to the readers and it certainly wouldn't fly in any other article category. Agne 19:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, concrete events in the history of a topic are possible points for adding an inline-cite. Adding a link to the original article publishing the result gives nice background information. But even this isn't much use to verify the statement. Looking at this original article, someone without background knowledge cannot decide whether this was really a new result which stood the test of time and challenges, or just an oddball article which was later disproved. That's the point with giving textbooks and review articles in the "References" section. They give an account of established body of knowledge.

It is just not the case that the science/math folks want to excempt themselves from WP:V and WP:RS, but for standard textbook stuff, listing standard textbooks in the "References" section is the method of choice.

And it's not only science. Whereas an article on some topic in medieval history most like will give both summary references and in-line cites to specific statements, someone kot knowledgeable in the field would have a hard job verifying the article due to the problem of source selection.

Pjacobi 19:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a compromise: Add a Notes section and footnote the article at the points where explanation for laypeople is necessary. Make reference (even if only by mentioning where the explanation can be had from) to the textbooks that are listed as reference further in the article. Then the footnotes are verifiable, and the article text is understandable. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelatedly, Agnes, you might find {{technical}} to be a more useful and acceptable tag where you're currently using the unreferenced tag. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agne, I have reverted your citation needed tagging of special relativity. This tagging made the article almost unreadable and I do not think it is any helpful. Majority of people who can contribute to this article do not appreciate the inline citations, and we can not keep these tags indefinitely. This number of the inline citations would not make the article any nicer, and for the purpose of verifying the claims the list of references should suffice. (Igny 20:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

It might be useful perhaps were you to consult another encyclopedia on these same topics where you will observe that many of the observations that you suggest need citations are presented as fundamental to the state of knowledge in the field; the reader is thereby invited to rely on the authority of the author. We should aspire to the same standard. Eusebeus 21:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's just contrary to the project's policies. Surely you're not suggesting that certain topics don't need references? Wikipedia's "common knowledge" exception only applies to general knowledge, not specialised knowledge. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all; sorry to have given that impression. Citation is critically important. But it needs context. Eusebeus 22:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderman?

Sorry, but this edit is pure trolling. There can arguably be some places where adding references may be an option, but your shotgun approach can be seen as violation of WP:POINT (or even WP:SPIDER). The SR names several textbooks as reference. Reading only one of them will remove any of your tagged doubts. --Pjacobi 16:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did my tagging from the approach of a layperson. Not being an expert, I don't know the things that an expert would undoubtably known or be able to assume. I was also mindful of what can appear to be original research. (Again, without the expert background in Physics--how am I to know?). Without citations a lay person can not possibly verify those items according to WP:V. They were good faith edits coming from a layperson. I do think the accusation of trolling is uncivil and borderline arrogant. Agne 19:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is uncivil to tag an article with dozens of {{fact}} tags and not have the decency to discuss their placement or your questions on the talkpage. After all, a sentence can contain more than one citable fact, in some cases the sentences you tagged contain more than five citable facts. So by simply placing the tag and then leaving without so much as a "hello" strikes me as being very uncivil. --ScienceApologist 21:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your cite requests

Your edit summary when you added cite requests to Special Relativity didn't make it clear what you think the layperson needs to know. Take your first request, for example, regarding Galileo's principle re motion. Do you want evidence that Galileo said this, or that the principle is sound, or both? Couldn't you have asked on the talk page? I must say the inclusion of so many {{fact}}s makes Wiki look rather silly IMMHO. It is interesting that {{fact}}s can survive on such a scholarly article, but {{fact}}s placed on pseudoscience and UFO-Bigfoot type articles are quickly removed. Ah Wikipedia, what the hell happened that we came to this sorry state? Moriori 00:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jacob Pavlovitch Adler#GA Re-Review and In-line citations: You say that "this article does not include in-line citations". In fact, the majority of the article is cited to specific pages in Adler's memoir. While I agree that the portions about his childhood and his family are under-cited, and that in general we could be updated to a more current citation style, "does not include in-line citations" is a gross exaggeration: I count about 40 inline citations. - Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above replies

It will take a me a while to get caught up. In this midst of all this, my cat decided to have kittens and one of them unfortunately didn't make it. :( So a family drama and concerns pushed Wikidrama to the backseat. Agne 21:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration relating to Non-notability

Hey, II just put together an arbitration case at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Harrassment.2C_talk_page_vandalism.2C_and_non-consensus_changes_to_guideline. Radiant and a few others have been (in my view) clearly abusing wikipedia, and I hope that this arbitration can solve this once and for all. I would greatly appreciate your input. Fresheneesz 05:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Some_argue
^ NB: Dated. Use a random "source" found through Google to endorse the Truth.

[1] ttp://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Some_argue

[2] NB: Dated. Use a random "source" found through Google to endorse the Truth.

[1]

[2]