User talk:Jmcgnh/Archives/2017/04

ERF

Hello Jmcgnh. Thanks for helping me to improve the article. I've made corresponding changes. Please, confirm External links section looks better now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wandalen (talk • contribs) 20:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Can I remove the label? Wandalen (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wandalen: Let's talk about article content on the article's talk page Talk:Exponential response formula. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Skepticism

Hi. Concerning wp:skepticism, I probably won't have time to try to revive it myself, at least not in the immediate future. I'm mainly hoping to make it easier for someone else who'd like to revive it by getting the housekeeping out of the way.If you have any ideas concerning how the project could progress further, which articles it should work on, etc., please try to implement them by discussing your plans on the talk page or editing the to-do list. Karlpoppery (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't thinking you would do the reviving all by yourself. I count 4 maybe 5 recently active editors paying attention to the project now and that may be sufficient to justify calling it "active" Your work was certainly influential at getting that ball rolling and plowing through all the article assessments seems to have gotten some attention. Thanks.

My own plans are to mostly continue to nibble away at the cleanup list, which I've been doing on and off for the past 11 months that I've been on Wikipedia. I may grow bolder as my experience and time permit. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I just think that someone will need to hustle a bit to get some collaboration going again, i.e. truly improving articles and clearing backlogs. If no one has done it in a few weeks I'll try to make it happen. Karlpoppery (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikibooks links

Are you sure that one should consider as SPAM the promotion of Wikibooks on Wikipedia ? Aren't all Wikimedia projects united ? --Thierry Dugnolle (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thierry Dugnolle: I'm absolutely sure that Wikipedia should not be used for promotion. An editor is allowed to add content and, along with that content, a reference to a suitable book that supports the content. It becomes very questionable when the book is added by an editor using the same name as the author and the addition is merely a link. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Your theory contradicts practice : "See also", "External links", and so on are very common on Wikipedia. Isn't it usually a kind of promotion ? Is self-promotion forbidden ? As I suppose you also do, I work hard on Wikimedia projects, and I want my work to be visible. Is it wrong ? --Thierry Dugnolle (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's the very definition of WP:COI. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hence, I may promote other's books, but not mine. OK, because I mostly want Wikibooks to be better known and to attract more contributors. To be referenced on Wikipedia is a good reason to write on Wikibooks. --Thierry Dugnolle (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, balanced with the considerations of whether it's "for the benefit of readers" or the list of external links grows to the point where it is generally considered excessive. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

You're right. If I had known the long list of Wikibooks on Quantum mechanics, this discussion would not be. --Thierry Dugnolle (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The link to Wikibooks is not a link to a list of quantum wikibooks, as I first thought, but to a single, unfinished wikibook, which does not deserve to be so promoted (because it is unfinished). There are two completed wikibooks on quantum mechanics, the two I referenced yesterday. I think it would benefit both Wikipedia and Wikibooks, to reference these two books on the Wikipedia article and not to reference the unfinished one. Do you agree ? --Thierry Dugnolle (talk) 05:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Please forgive me to be such a nuisance on your discussion page. But as a Wikibooks writer, the point is important to me. I want all completed wikibooks to be referenced on Wikipedia, because it is the right way to recruit new Wikibooks contributors. It would be a problem for Wikipedia if there were too many wikibooks, and if they were too bad. But this is not the case. References to one or a few wikibooks will not disrupt a Wikipedia article. If one day, there are too many wikibooks, Wikipedia will have to choose selection rules, but this will not come soon. --Thierry Dugnolle (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I too misperceived that link as pointing to a list of books, not to a miserable half-baked book. The situation on the Introduction to quantum mechanics article is no better.

I'm not sure what the best solution is, since I never signed into Wikibooks before today. The {{Wikibooks}} template seems to be designed only to point to individual titles, not to collections of titles. Since I don't know what to do, I'm going to have to punt and direct you to use Talk:Quantum mechanics or some suitable project page or noticeboard to ask for something more satisfactory. (We should probably have been doing this there in the first place.) I'm fairly sure other editors will agree with me that it would be improper for you to add a pointer to your own book to the page as you did, but maybe I'm wrong on this point. In order to make progress, we need to get some more minds engaged. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. There's no hurry. I agree with the COI rule. --Thierry Dugnolle (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Transhumanism

move discussion to Talk:Transhumanism

It would be useful if you could suggest a proper place for the argument that our society is already transhumane. I have no particular attachment to the reference used. If you know others who make the same argument and you prefer to refer to them, feel free to do so. As far as I know, Casas (2017) is the only one developing it. And he used the whole book to do it, so I am not sure if it makes sense to quote a single page. However, as you deleted my contribution partly on these grounds, I will include the first page where this argument is made. --KsaveroEO (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Since we are discussing the content of a particular article, I'm going to move this discussion to Talk:Transhumanism. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

COI rule

I have a problem with the COI rule because I don't know anyone who could reference my books to please me.

Here is how I interpret the rule - I would like your opinion : I reference myself freely (don't worry, I wrote only two books and two or three references per book is a maximum) and if someone disagrees, I don't insist, because the COI rule is against me. If noone disagrees, there is no need for the COI rule, because there is no conflict. --Thierry Dugnolle (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I realize now that I have not been clear enough about my purpose. Let me explain. I wrote, in french, a page, entitled Why write on Wikibooks?, to attract new contributors. I told to future writers that they will be referenced easily on Wikipedia. Was I wrong ? --Thierry Dugnolle (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)