User talk:Equilibrial/Archive 2

Welcome and introduction

Hi, Shoplifter. We talked a bit on the IRC. You can often catch me there. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get started. Best of luck! My76 Strat 04:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to read anything - anybody can edit; just go to an article and edit it. Be Bold, but please don't put silly stuff in - it will be removed very quickly, and will annoy people.

Ask for help. Talk to us live, or edit this page, put {{helpme}} and describe what help you need. Someone will reply very quickly - usually within a few minutes.

Play in your user area. For example, create User:Shoplifter/test.

Edit existing articles, before you make your own. Look at some subjects that you know about, and see if you can make them a bit better. For example,Wikipedia:Cleanup#2009.

When you're ready, read about Your first article. It should be about something well-known, and it will need references.

Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page.

There's lots of information below. Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia!

--My76 Strat 04:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Grade sources • Cite sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists • Best articles Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Pages needing attention • Peer review The missing manual

Your submission at Articles for creation

Caroline test, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at thegrading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping Wikipedia! My76 Strat 16:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination

The submission which was created is nominated here to appear on themain page in the DYK section. You can participate in this process. Cheers. My76 Strat17:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I really appreciate it. Shoplifter (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Six-Day Warr

[1] You might find some of the references and recent discussion here to be of interest. harlan (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive and insightful as always, very good read. Shoplifter (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preemptive article-writing

Hey, I'm just skimming stuff. I haven't seen anything you're working with on harlan re Caroline test, etc. Everything i say below could be unnecessary...
But I'm surely hoping you're looking into both sides of the question: What is the relevance of the fact that Egypt still considered itself at war with Israel; the war was never officially ended? What scholars think the Caroline test is no longer a good measure (the days of muskets vs. the days of missile strikes, etc.?). Of the very large number of scholars who think Israel's strike was preemptive, what justification do they use? And so on.
self-evidently, it is not NPOV to marshal a host of facts that argue only one position. I'm hoping you aren't doing that. It would take a huge amount of time and trouble to generate the counter-argument, esp. since... in Wikipedia, if anyone tries to add opposing facts one by one to a coherent, cohesive, tightly-woven (but POV) argument, other editors will revert and say "we covered that; our sources are better than yours, etc." • Ling.Nut 01:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ling.Nut, how's it going. I think your concerns are somewhat misdirected. If you're not happy with they way I argue my view, I would encourage you to join the discussion over at the Preemptive war talk page. In fact, I posted a notice at no less than seven places (project Israel, Egypt, IPC, project History, etc.) because I wanted to throw as large a net as possible. I don't want to push my view; I'm confident it's the one that is policy-compliant. But I'm not sure what your gripe is here - me, referencing the Caroline test (which is the customary law standard, even John Yoo agrees with that), or the solution I've suggested in regards to how the Six-Day War should be presented in the Preemptive war article. If it's the latter, I'm surprised, since I've argued for compliance with the consensus in the main article, which you undoubtedly played a large role in achieving. And if it's the former, I don't think it's my responsibility to dig up sources which attempts to refute foundational legal doctrines. Shoplifter (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-read your post, and now it seems that your concern is with my article. I'm confused since you reference the Six-Day War, which is not mentioned in the article (nor should it be, since it's an article about a legal test). If this is your concern (and not the discussion in Preemptive war), then you can relax. But I would hope that, in the future, you will take the time to actually read the article you're perturbed about before voicing your complaints. This doesn't look good on either of us.Shoplifter (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth it to me to periodically reiterate our shared values and mutual expectations. There's a great deal of smoke and dust and sound and fury going on over there at thesix ring circus. Under those circumstances, a rare breath of fresh air may occasionally be misinterpreted as a chill wind. But that's the nature of these kinds of situations. • Ling.Nut 10:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Shoplifter (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I said was, "I'm not complaining; I'm reinforcing our shared values." • Ling.Nut 12:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, if you expect me to listen to your concerns, you should at least read my article and present pointed criticism (if that's what this is about, I'm still not sure). Pontificating about shared values is not helpful. Shoplifter (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you think I'm pontificating. I do not perceive myself that way. The mood has become so poisoned and adversarial (as I was saying earlier) that any discussion of higher-level goals and values is viewed with suspicion, and categorized (and rejected) as "spamming" or "pontification". I think everyone on that page needs to spend more than a little time discussing higher goals and shared values rather than hacking at each other. It would be time very well spent.
It may be days or even a week or two before I can devote any time at all to Wikipedia. When I can, I will try to read as much as I can.• Ling.Nut 12:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I think I understand the point you were trying to make. But maybe you should be a bit more precise when discussing these things. It's easy to misinterpret vague appeals to introspection, especially when one is involved in multiple concrete enterprises. Shoplifter (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in moving on to another section, later. I think arguing further about the lead is counterproductive. later • Ling.Nut 12:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Caroline test

On 29 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Caroline test, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Time Immemorial

Hi Shoplifter -

The article, as it stood, was not about the book but about "why is the book" wrong.

Bbeehvh (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

Enforcement--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add a note to this: Shoplifter, you need to at least state your point of view on the talk page, rather than just reverting repeatedly without explanation. Otherwise, you are not going to accomplish anything. Looie496 (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The reason why I didn't reply to the enforcement proceedings or on the relevant article talk page can be seen here: Talk:Preemptive_war#Osirak Shoplifter (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tks

Tks for the kind words on my talk page. Please don't respond on the talk page of this account; I'm only editing Wikipedia because you don't have your email enabled. If you have anything to discuss, my email is still enabled... Tks again! Ling.Nut.Email.Only (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hej

Hejsan! Håller med om att artikeln är för USAcentrisk, och tack för erbjudandet, det hade varit värt ett försök att ordna artiklarna tillsammans, men tyvär är jag bara här lite då och då numera pga mycket tung arbetsbelastning. Om jag får mer tid över för detta projekt framöver så hör jag av mig ifall artiklarna inte redan blivit fixade då och du fortfarande är intreserad av att jobba på dem. Mvh, --Stor stark7 ^Speak 19:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Equilibrial. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 05:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Octoberlowres.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Octoberlowres.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria atWikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. SeeWikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (perWikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 14:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Qjoelowres.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Qjoelowres.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria atWikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. SeeWikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (perWikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 18:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Nationality" of journals

Hi, nowadays, most academic journals (including Journal of Cold War Studies) are thoroughly international. JoCWS has an editorial board spanning the whole globe, for instance. Most journals pride themselves on being "international", but that is by now so common, that we don't even include this in most journal articles any more. I don't think that JoCWS is an "American" journal, it's international in scope, contributors, and editorial board. I hope that the above convinces you or at least explains my edit :-) Happy editing!--Crusio (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Academic journals

Hi, please have a look at that category. It's a top category and articles should not be categorized into it but into one of the appropriate subcategories. Apart from this detail, thanks for creating all those good journal articles! --Crusio (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

=autoreviewer

At Crusio's suggestion , I have given the "autoreviewer" user-rigbht (see WP:AUTOREVIEWER, which means that new articles you start will be automatically marked as already reviewed in the new pages list. DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. Shoplifter (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Equilibrial. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Journal articles, a few details

Hi again,

Just a few details. For "history", I have systematically used the format xxxx-yyyy instead of xxxx to yyyy. I have no real preference (I think this came about more or less coincidentally) and as far as I know there are no specific instructions for this in WP:MOS (but I may be wrong there). In any case, it would be good to keep things kind of similar, instead of changing each others changes :-)

Country: after discussion at WPJournals, it was decided to only put a country if everything is very clear about this: a national society with a publisher and editor in chief all in the same country. For other cases, we just leave it blank (for reasons I have touched upon before). Also, somewhere in WP:MOS (I am certain I have seen it, just don't remember exactly where), it is said that obvious terms should not be wikilinked unless there is a specific reason for that. Hence, we don't link terms like "English" or "United States". Concerning the latter, I think "United States" (again according to WP:MOS) is preferred over "USA" or "U.S.A."

Let me know If I am mistaken in any of these things. Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If you simply remove the "manguage" field, it defaults to "English". Acronyms: I habitully remove those, unless they serve a purpose (for instance, if an article refers multiple times to "The Society of Foo", I leave in "TSoF" or "TSF". Otherwise I delete them: our readers can read and construct these acronyms themselves. Saying that the acronym for "Journal of Foo" is "JoF" is kind of insulting their intelligence, I feel... --Crusio (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that you informed me because I wanted to ask you about these things. As far as the history, I've seen "xxxx to xxxx" used more widely than "xxxx-xxx". If you think the latter is the better choice, and you know there's aplenty of journal articles with this configuration, I'll gladly oblige. I just went with the first because I had seen it more often, and I still do. I won't argue about country designation if the MOS gives a clear directive; I personally prefer initials (USA) because it makes reading less cumbersome, especially in the case of a long publishing house name. No matter, the important thing is that everyone's basically doing the same thing, so I will follow suit.Shoplifter (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be good to check, my memory is not always reliable and I'm currently jet-lagged and ready for bed... As for the history, all journals I have edited probably have the "-" instead of " to ", but there are lots of articles I have not edited yet... :-)

Fair enough, I will do what you suggest from now on. I agree about acronyms, by the way. Are you contemplating the irc idea? I'm telling you, it would make communication so much easier. :-) Shoplifter (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, forgot about that. Probably to avoid admitting the embarrassing fact that I have no clue what that is... I still print out PDFs and don't even have a cell phone, I'm afraid, let alone a Blackberry... (And I wouldn't want a Kindle even if they paid me to use it...) An old fart, I fear... --Crusio (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, IRC is about as old as you, I'm sure. :-D Check it out Internet Relay Chat and [2]. It's very easy to setup.Shoplifter (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capitals

Hi, I see that we have a different idea of capitalizing scientific fields :-) When somebody asks me in which field I work, I write: "I work in neuroscience", not "I work in Neuroscience"... So in infoboxes I always use capitals for the first word, but not for subsequent ones. Not a big deal, I can change my habits, but just so we do things similarly.--Crusio (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if you reply in a sentence you don't capitalize the term, but if you were to fill in a form and one field would be "Field of study" or the like, I'm sure you'd fill in "Neuroscience". I think it's proper to capitalize each term lest one would get the impression that one field is more important than the other. Shoplifter(talk) 18:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. But if I were to fill in multiple fields, I would write "Neuroscience, neurogenetics, behavior genetics", for instance. Or "Neurobehavioral genetics". In other words, I use sentence capitalization and I don' think this indicates a rank order of importance. --Crusio (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if there is a directive in the MOS for this? Shoplifter (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, no, I don't. --Crusio (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should join me and Headbomb in the channel; that would make it easier to discuss these and other things that may come up. Shoplifter (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Internationalsecurity.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Internationalsecurity.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currentlyorphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Courcelles 04:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback (Richwales) — Supreme Court cases

Hello, Equilibrial. You have new messages at Richwales's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]