User talk:Marc Kupper/Archive 2

Notable women Generals in the U.S. Military

This is a list of articles in case Template:Notable Women Generals in the U.S. Military is deleted and I need to restore some of the cross references as "See Other" or even as a navbox.

• Ann E. Dunwoody
• Anna Mae Hays
• Elizabeth P. Hoisington
• Susan J. Helms
• Jeanne M. Holm
• Leslie F. Kenne
• Claudia Kennedy
• Carol Mutter
• Grace Hopper (Admiral - should not be included)

--Marc Kupper|talk 04:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks; it's nice to see it there, even if it does attract vandalism. I've brought a few other magazines to featured status too, and perhaps they'll get to the front page one day -- I think it would be good to see Amazing Stories there. Mike Christie (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

re: ISFDB links

Thanks. I didn't know that. I'm not actually filling those in manually, though. I'm using: {{isfdb name|id={{subst:PAGENAMEE}}|name={{subst:PAGENAME}}}} which uses the page name to add the underlined and non-underlined versions. I think I'll stick with that as it avoids breaking the link if the page is moved (which happens for disambiguation purposes quite often). I appreciate the suggestion! -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Future disambiguations are a good point. I've added a warning about this to the template documentation. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Linnea Sinclair and SF question

First of all, thank you for your nice words about my first article on Linnea Sinclair.

I especially appreciate the change you made removing her birthday. I removed it from the infobox, but forgot about that one. And the external link you added, too.

Please visit again! I look forward to further input from you.

Since I've seen on your userpage that you are a SF fan, perhaps you could have a look at SFFWorld Help! Do you know...-section? I'd appreciate it, and be ever so happy if you would know. Debresser (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Debresser - regarding the YASID request on sffworld - that's an area I'm particularly bad at. I believe know the exact story that request is about (or at least one that's identical to it) but the way my brain is unwired I never connect them to the author or story title meaning I end up hunting more or less at random trying to connect the dots. One dot that stands out is I read the story summary within the past ~nine months meaning I could narrow it down to a few hundred and that it was a book I'd set aside to read and that it's now buried... As I saw a print copy the on line version is probably a short fiction work by the same author. The same unwired logic works on book covers. I can look at a cover and tell you instantly if I have a copy meaning I've bought second copies of a story when the publisher changed the artwork. Show me the original painting and I'll know if I have the cover but not the author/title. I'll leave this on my talk page and I'll run across the book again sooner or later. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that. I also read it about a year ago. Definitely online though. Debresser (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at my article again. Thanks for merging the links. I knew something like that would be possible, but didn't know how. Now I do.

And thank you also for the criticism. I appreciate that especially. Please also have a look at what I had to say in my defense, so to say. Debresser (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome and it's no problem at all. Overall, it's a good article. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. This time I have learned from you to use the "web cite" template. And how to properly note the names of books. And I definitely think the article is not so bad, as articles of this kind come. You probably noticed the additional information in the PI section. That took care of mentioning the pen name in the article itself. Debresser (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is looking and reading very nicely. Good work! There is one minor technical thing but I need to read the manual on how to do it. That's when a page is the target of a redirect, such as for Megan Sybil Baker, that people are encouraged to put a thing at the top of the page that will display a message that says "such and such redirects here". The other thing that I remember from reading that manual page was the target word would go in bold as in Megan Sybil Baker. I just took a look at the help but did not see what I was looking for. Ah, silly me, it was in my head all along. See {{Redir}} but we'd need to hunt through to see which one is the right fit. {{Redirect3}} would work but isn't there another person of note named Megan Baker? Oh yes, there she is but not terribly noteworthy and I see the wiki police have tagged the article. For example {{otheruses4}} can be used to generate This page is about the writer who uses the pen name Megan Sybil Baker. For the photographer, see Megan Baker. Maybe that's overly polite as the odds are quite remote of someone looking for the photographer and landing on the Linnea Sinclair article. The {{Redir}} page does not mention the thing about making target words bold meaning more hunting in the manual to see if it's essential. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I also give this soime thoughts, but since the pen name of Linnea Sinclair is Megan Sybil Baker - always with the Sybil - I didn't think it necessary. Debresser (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Romantic Fantasy

I reworked the lead of the article on Romantic Fantasy. See also the Talk page, where I noted most of the problems of the previous lead. I think I did a nice job: well sourced and referenced, logical order. I also made a few relatively small changes in the layout of the rest of the article. Please also note the use of the {{cite web}} template, which I learned from you. I also added a small commentary on the Talk page of Romance novels. Debresser (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I responded here and there to some of your commentaries, suggestions and changes. See especially the paragraph you wrote for the Romance novels article.

And please see my Talk page, that I started working on the article about David Weber. Debresser (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I liked the point made by Yobmod on the Military Science Fiction talk page. Isn't there something like that in the policies? Debresser (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, yes, the list should go and as Yobmod notes, there would be an article section about noteworthy genre authors or works. In reading over his/her comments I'm with Yobmod on many topics. The comments also made me realize the the lists of authors I created last night would qualify as "original research" even though it was a strictly mechanical process. If were were to cherry pick authors from those lists it would definitely be OR. Of course, as there was no source cited for the original list (as a list) then it too was OR.

I need to go read and think about the articles on reliable sources and such to see what the difference is between a Wikipedia editor such as you and I vs. a genuine "reliable source." 99% of the stuff simply has not been the subject of rigorous academic interest meaning we will find next to zero body of work that could be cited and used as the foundation for articles. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I finished writing on the David Weber article. See also the talk page there. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

David Weber

Thanks again for your willingness to give input to the article about David Weber.

I tried to defend inclusion of "popular and enduring character" as much as I could on the talk page. One thing I didn't want to say there is another point, which I am sure you'll understand. That I'd hate to omit essentially true and relevant information because it might be argued that some Wikipedia rule or the other is being bent over a little. That's apart from the fact that I dispute those allegations. :) Debresser (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you completely on that one and don't dispute that David Weber is popular. What got my attention was the blatant peacock and then when I looked at the cite that was helpfully provided I also saw the blatant copyvio. As WP:PEA says in its "nutshell" "Instead of telling the reader that a subject is important, use facts to show the subject's importance." It seems there are publisher's news reports station millions of copies sold, etc. We can mention X millions sold over X years and cite the press release. The reader can make up his or her own mind if someone is "popular". Is Barak Obama popular? The answer is "it depends on who you ask." Even though there's lots and lots of evidence of the guy's popularity there are absolutely no peacocks on his article as all the article needs to state is the facts which are popular vote counts, etc. and not "opinion" that the guy is popular.

Technically the "over X years" part above would be OR but that's an area I want to study in the policy. Is it "original research" to see that the first story for a character was in 1990, and the last in 2005, and to write in the article "The character has appeared in this author's works for fifteen years?" Or do I need to stick literally to the facts available in my sources and can only write "The character first appeared in the story title published in 1990 and also has appeared in the story title 2 published in 2005."(cite book #1)(cite book #2) If I want to note that the character has appeared regularly but don't have a reliable source that states this can I write "character has appeared regularly in X's stories" followed by a dozen cites, one for each of the stories the character has appeared in. I did the dozen cites version once in an article once but handled it as a single <ref> that contained bullets for the dozen sub-cites. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you removed all links to excerpts and online reading. I have no idea if there's any policy in that regard. It was part of the article before I started working on it, so I just added those few links that were missing and didn't give it a second thought. From a non-professional personal point of view, I think the links presented a piece of information I would have been very happy to receive.

It's not "policy" but rather a style guideline. See Wikipedia:External links. Having every single story linked up to two sites war far, far, in excess of "they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article". The article is about DW the author and not a blow by blow of his stories. Ideally, DW or Baen would make such a list of links available on their own web site. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd been intending to remove those links for a long time and was reminded of it when someone tagged the article with "too many links". The links were unencylopedic in a number of ways. 1) It made the bibliography feel like listcruft and did not themselves add to an article about David Weber the author. 2) Wikipedia discourages links to external sites. This is mainly to head off using an article for advertising which can make an article appear unencylopedic. 3) The "read online" links were not to an official Baen or David Weber site but were to a place where someone had made copies. Usually these sites with copies are found to contain pirated copies.

If the DW stories are available either on the Baen or official DW sites I could see adding a section about that Baen and/or DW have made the stories available on line and to have the cite for that statement be to the on-line location. Citing a third party site would not be supporting the article as it does not show that it's Baen and/or DW making them available. (there are pirated copies of many works available on line and showing that they exist does not demonstrate that the copyright holder allows, permits, encourages, etc. this. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You added the "long lead" tag. This is actually along the same lines as my repeated request for somebody to break the lead up into sections (and if appropriate subsections). Wouldn't you consider doing that? Debresser (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the hat as a reminder and realized as I was adding this that this is what you had meant by "break it into sections." I can look at breaking it into sections but not before the weekend. Until then the hat is a reminder that it needs to be done. The large lead got painfully obvious once the noise was removed from the bibliography. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW - I believe it would be better if this thread was on the DW talk page, ideally broken up into sections. It's about how to improve that article. I'll be shifting them over in a bit. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Of course it should be there. The only reason I started here was because of my first remark, which was "of the record".

You will notice I divided the previous lead into a lead and a section. The lead I think is good as a lead, but the section might possibly be renamed or divided into sub-sections. Go ahead! Debresser (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw the extra section you added and that seemed to solve the entire problem. Dividing it any more could lead to rather small sections. I have not had time to get back to the DW article and will be busy on other things this coming weekend. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Debresser (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Internet_Speculative_Fiction_Database

I updated the Internet Speculative Fiction Database redirect because for whatever reason, when I followed the link I didn't end up at the proper sub-heading, just at Online general-interest book databases. Then I had to scroll down. It wasn't until you mentioned it that I even noticed that the only thing that changed was the spaces to underlines. I have no idea if that is what made the redirect start working right or not. To be honest, if I had noticed, I probably wouldn't have made the edit. :)

Re: General of the Armies. Yeah, it would be nice to finally solve the mysteries of that family of titles once and for all. I'm still trying to track down Pershing's original promotion order and the US Code, but most online resources (even the ones at the libraries I have checked) just don't go back that far. — MrDolomite • Talk 17:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

reply to your sock question

Thank you for jumping in, but no - the previous sock conversation I was having was completely not related to the crowsnest article. Yes, I am aware that there are times a user may have a single account for specific edits, which is not necessarily against WP policy. I had not bothered to look into any sock-related issues with those two editors, so feel free to go down that path yourself if you feel it's justified to do so. I'm not involved to that extent. And no, not an admin. :) Cheers! SpikeJones (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - The apparent puppets are not particularly damaging and also appear to be very new to Wikipedia. They may not be aware of talk pages for example (or at least have never edited one). I'll leave both of them a message about the AfD as they may not know about watchlists, etc. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

6 star rank

Nope, I have never seen any legitimate sources talking about 6 star rank. IMHO, that is all just WP:OR, so it can gladly go to AFD. But good catch. — MrDolomite • Talk 01:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't speedy it, just take it again to AfD. It's a substantially different article according to several editors, see User talk:Theverymodelofamodernmajorgeneral#6 star rank. Andrewa (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Theverymodelofamodernmajorgeneral is clearly a sock puppet and so I'm not impressed by that one. Are you the "several?" :-)

My initial plan was CsD and then to discuss the details of "why" on the talk page if someone chose to sandbox the thing. There already was an AfD discussion which lead to "delete." No new RS evidence has been presented that would justify recreating the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens is one, and I am another, both when it was recreated (see edit summary) in late December and again in its state as of yesterday. I have no opinion on the article, only noticed it on NPP when it was created, and had a short talk with the creator on his talk page. I don't however see a strong indication that the creator is a sockpuppet, and certainly would not imply lightly that Andrew, who is a long-term editor and an admin, might be controlling it. There are many many accounts around who have only created one article in their time. Cheers, Amalthea 23:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It should have gone to WP:DRV, but that's past now. You can't expect a newbie to know about that. I was intending to one day DRV it, but I wanted to get some solid references first, so as not to waste any more time on a borderline discussion. All I've come up with on short notice is the army history of funerals. I am a bit surprised that this is not considered a reliable secondary source by some, and hope that a new AfD would disagree on that. And of course consensus can change but I don't like to rely on that.

Please request a checkuser if you're so sure it's a sock, then read WP:BITE, and then apologise to the newbie concerned. To me it's not important. To a newbie it might be reason enough to quit Wikipedia. It's hardly our best behaviour.

I guess you'll also request a checkuser on the uninvolved admin who rejected the speedy? (;-> Just a thought. Andrewa (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of checkuser and but did not care about what looks like a sock to me as Theverymodelofamodernmajorgeneral (T...l) was not being malicious. I suspect I should write a defense of "clearly a sock puppet" but am liable to end up shooting myself in the foot. I started to write a defense of 'Are you the "several?"' and in getting into the details now understand what Andrewa meant by the "It's a substantially different article according to several editors" part above. What threw me off track is he linked to thread that only showed himself and T...l defending the resurrection of [6 star rank]. Thus I asked 'who are the "several"?' and now see that the first part of the sentence is about the admins who can see the deleted article, the new one, determine it's substantially different, and that the CsD was unwarranted.

I've never seen the deleted article. Can one of you copy the final wikitext to User:Marc_Kupper/6 star rank? I don't think a full restore to user space is needed unless one of you is aware things in its edit history that would be useful to know. Thanks.

I have a couple of things I need to deal with before March 1st but have a rewrite in mind for 6-stars that can be sourced and won't be hinged on OR/opinions. Hopefully I can do that tomorrow. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I for one didn't intend to put you in the defensive at all, just wanted to give my take. I've also restored the deleted revisions of the article. It will make Andrew the original author again, but for all intents and purposes he is, even of the current article, and Theverymodelofamodernmajorgeneral hasn't been around for a long time anyway. Cheers, Amalthea 21:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you. That restore worked out better than I thought. I'd never restored an article that already had been recreated but the instant I saw your restore it made perfect sense in that a delete is just a record on the history chain for the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

hey, I am not a sock puppet. That was my first article, i felt somewhat strongly about the issue, and I did my best. I'm sorry if i filled your image of a sockpuppet, but oh well.--Theverymodelofamodernmajorgeneral (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Testing Twinkle vandalism warnings

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Testing TW, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Testing TW. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. General Note(2) [uw-vandalism2]: Vandalism --Marc Kupper|talk 20:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Testing TW, you will be blocked from editing. General Note(3) [uw-vandalism3]: Vandalism --Marc Kupper|talk 20:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Testing TW. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Final Warning(4) [uw-vandalism4]: Vandalism --Marc Kupper|talk 20:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Testing TW, you will be blocked from editing. Only Warning(4im) [uw-vandalism4im]: Vandalism --Marc Kupper|talk 20:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Testing TW: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Single issue notices / [uw-warn]: Warning vandals --Marc Kupper|talk 20:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I left you a reply at WT:TW#Monobook installation broken?. --Amalthea 21:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Does an IP get notified? I'm not getting a new-message. 65.74.142.159 (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

MacArthur's promotion package

Sorry, I wasn't the one who had a copy of MacArthur's promotion package. - Shaheenjim (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stephanie Shaver

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Stephanie Shaver, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Article does not assert notability or contain reliable sources which could be used to do so: tagged as such for over 4 months now.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Thompson Is Right (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Stephanie Shaver

An article that you have been involved in editing, Stephanie Shaver, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Shaver. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Thompson Is Right (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Magnesium

Hi. I've declined your request for the moment but will be happy to revisit it if necessary. Meanwhile always remember to warn vandals, it's amazing how often a templated warning will stop them in their tracks. Best wishes to you, --John (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

And having reviewed your edits I see you did indeed warn a couple of users. I only said that as I noticed you didn't warn the last IP on the Mg article. Please don't take it as being patronizing. Do get in touch if you think I need to revisit this decision. --John (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Re: not warning the last IP. I got distracted when I went over to WP:RPP. I also see that the reverter in that case was a sock puppet of Cluebot. Maybe after 140 billion reverts it's in need of another oiling? :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 02:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

After reading the comments at talk I have semi protected for 1 month. Hope that's ok with you. --John (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

♪♫The New Mikemoral^talk_contribs 01:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Again... --♪♫The New Mikemoral^talk_contribs 01:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Once more. Does Twinkle let you have a one click access to talkback? --♪♫The New Mikemoral^talk_contribs 02:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

See the warning on your talk page. The warning box has an area where you can insert a message. It goes just below the warning message and a manual {{Talkback}} worked. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I should add that Twinkle is very easy to try out and to discard if it's not to your liking. It's JavaScript meaning you don't need to install things on your machine. Go to Special:Preferences, Gadgets tab, and TW is one of the editing gadgets. If you are using the Modern skin then there's another checkbox way down at the bottom of the page for this. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, it is the Wikipedia:Friendly thing. It gives more tabs for welcoming and such stuff, but also talkbacking. --♪♫The New Mikemoral^talk_contribs 22:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Granpuff

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm wondering if it should be posted at WP:AN or WP:ANI. I've always used those for problem editors, but you may know more about that than I do. Ward3001 (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I looked around for where to go with this and did not see WP:AN or WP:ANI. I'll take a look at those to see if they are better than an RfC. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I did the WP:AN at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Request for comment on a User RfC. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

My talk page

Thanks for telling me. I am aware. It's because I use {{override|Ward3001's Talk page}} at the top. I guess the template is imperfect. If I remove it, it will say "User talk:Ward3001" instead of "Ward3001's Talk page". Ward3001 (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You're right; it's painful. I may try it some day when I have nothing better to do. :) Cheers! Ward3001 (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Timothy Geithner

My edit of the Timothy Geithner article was not a test. The superfluous information pertaining to his confirmation does not belong in the initial portion of the article. He's been confirmed, so this information is not as relevant as it was 2-3 months ago. It is still contained in the 'Confirmation' portion of this article. SteveMunchen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC).

I replied at User_talk:SteveMunchen#March_2009 - The warning about the test edit has been deleted. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Cite-book

In genereal SB should leave cite-books alone so the questions shouldn't arise. As you say dates of this format are genrally indecipherable anyway. I will look into the reason it wanted to change the date and try to prersuade it not to. It is probably a bit of genreic code that fixes spelling errors in monthnames - and has inlcuded 01 as a "spelling error" for January. Rich Farmbrough, 09:24 17 March 2009 (UTC).

Orbit of the moon

It's hard to follow a thread on three separate user talk pages and so replied on Talk:Orbit of the Moon#Concave or Convex? where the conversation can hopefully consolidate as it's about that article. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- I just replied in the same place too. Terry0051 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Discovery of Neptune

Hallo Marc, You recently marked your edit in 'Discovery of Neptune' as a 'copyedit', but it doesn't look like a copyedit, because it significantly changed the meaning to something incorrect -- and I'm sure you didn't intend that.

The text before amendment was:

[the discovery] resulted from theoretical prediction of the existence of a major solar-system body without having previously seen it.

Here, the "it" can only mean the "major solar-system body", so that changing it to:

prediction of the existence of a major solar-system body without astronomers having previously realized it was a planet

makes it mean the same as:

prediction of the existence of a major solar-system body without astronomers having previously realized the major solar-system body was a planet.

That's clearly both incorrect and anachronistic (see prochronism) (because no-one previously realized that there was another major solar-system body) and I feel sure it was not what you meant.

I'm guessing that your reason for editing sprang from a concern, that the text should be more clearly consistent with the fact that there were hindsight calculations (after the discovery of Neptune) based on pre-discovery observations of unidentified objects, and that the hindsight calculations revealed, that there had been pre-discovery observations of things which were put down at the time as stars, but for which the recorded positions make it highly likely in retrospect that they were observations of the object now known as Neptune, and they were observations made without appreciating that the object observed was a planet or anything other than a star.

I agree that such a concern is fair enough, but the resulting wording does not match up with that. So I've clarified/corrected it to:

"it resulted from theoretical prediction of the existence of a major solar-system body made without knowledge of any observations of the body concerned."

I hope and believe that meets the point.

I suggest that the following articles are relevant -- Copy editing and Wikipedia:How to copy-edit

Kind regards, Terry0051 (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hallo Marc, thanks for your message. Yes, if you like to move my previous message above, please go ahead --- though I also have an alternative suggestion (seeing that you have expressed agreement with the most recent wording), that I post in a slightly briefer version of it on to the DoN talk page. Hopefully we could then keep things slightly briefer than on the former subject! <g> (I can't avoid mentioning that I found that other discussion rather painful in view of the approach taken by our 3rd discussion partner.) Kind regards. Terry0051 (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Terry - still swamped and so I thought I'd drop a quick note. The original wording was

The discovery of the planet Neptune remains notable because it resulted from theoretical prediction of the existence of a major solar-system body without having previously seen it.

Among my first thoughts on seeing this was that "without having previously seen it" was not accurate. Neptune had been spotted as early as December 28, 1612 by Galileo. He documented it but did not notice it was moving. On January 27 or 28, 1613 Galileo noted that it was moving but failed to realize he was seeing a significant planet.

I believe at this point my POV and yours diverged. I was thinking that "it" was Neptune and I believe you were thinking "it" was "existence of a major solar-system body." Thus my change was to attempt to clarify that "it" (Neptune) had been seen before but had not been recognized as "a major solar-system body." You edited that wording and now we have this:

The discovery of the planet Neptune remains notable because it resulted from theoretical prediction of the existence of a major solar-system body made without knowledge of any observations of the body concerned.

This seems good but the last part "without knowledge of any observations of the body concerned" bugs me a little as it's making me think and parse to see if I can understand what the writer is trying to say. I have a headache at the moment meaning it's a perfect time to test "easy to read" text. :-) How about this.

The discovery of the planet Neptune remains notable because it resulted from theoretical prediction of its existence. Previously discovery of major solar-system bodies had resulted from visual observations and systemic scans of the sky for anything that moved relative to the stars.

Shortening up the first sentence makes two problems more apparent. The first is the word "remains" which implies that Neptune was the only major solar system body discovered via theoretical prediction. That's not the case as Pluto was also predicted theoretically and was subsequently found at the predicted location. The second issue is the word "notable" which is one of the WP:PEACOCK words. How about this

The discovery of the planet Neptune resulted from theoretical prediction of its existence.

That solves the conflict with the Pluto discovery, eliminates the peacock word, and also eliminates the issue of that Neptune had been observed, and even noted as a moving object, as early as the year 1613. It also works well with the following sentence of the article's lead section. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Marc -- thanks for your explanations. I think I understand your scruples. But I also think this may be a case where the number of words is getting out of hand. An earlier version of the sentence said something like

The discovery of Neptune is notable because it resulted from theoretical prediction of the existence of a major solar-system body without previously seeing it.

The points I'd make in favor of something like that are:-

(1) It's fairly short and to the point, as befits a sentence in a lead paragraph.

(2) I would argue that it does _not_ offend the WP 'peacock' standard, because it gives a reason for the notability. The standard, as I read it, is directed against bandying the words around _without_ giving a reason for them. Here, the sentence was to explain how the notability arose and why the article exists.

(3) I suppose that "without previously seeing it" could conceivably raise the question 'who didn't see it'. As far as I can see, the obvious answer from applying commonsense to an opening sentence like this is 'the person(s) who did the predicting'. Even the most scrupulous of parsing must admit that as a possible meaning, and read that way it says something true. In the absence of anybody else at all in the picture given by the text up to that point, I'd suggest that is also the only reasonable meaning that commonsense will yield.

I do think that while it is always possible to raise doubts about a short sentence and to add words, there is no real help in that direction, because

The more words there are, the more words are there about which doubts may be entertained.

I offer the following reactions about your specimen sentences:

(1) "The discovery of the planet Neptune remains notable because it resulted from theoretical prediction of its existence. Previously discovery of major solar-system bodies had resulted from visual observations and systemic scans of the sky for anything that moved relative to the stars."

and

(2) "The discovery of the planet Neptune resulted from theoretical prediction of its existence."

Number (2) is factually fine so far as it goes, of course. It doesn't communicate the striking contrast between the 'major solar-system body' and the 'without previously seeing it'. To me, that seems the primary impressive fact about the Neptune history. But there's no ownership, and it's up for grabs what should go in the lead paragraph.

Number (1) seems to me more problematic. It doesn't only omit the striking fact mentioned above, but its factual status is arguable also. Unless I'm mistaken about the history, discovery of Uranus was just about pure accident. Nobody was looking for a planet. I also believe that it's actually controversial about Pluto whether or not its discovery was an accident. They were looking for something that (according to their ideas) ought to have been much bigger. Based on their preconceptions, they even initially believed Pluto was larger than the Earth, and successive estimates of its mass have steadily reduced, through several orders of magnitude, to something almost unbelievably tiny for a planet. In summary: They found a speck when looking for a lump, and the speck is too small to have been responsible for the effects that caused them to look for the lump -- which they never found, by the way. I believe this is also much of what was behind the recent IAU demotion of Pluto in status from planet to dwarf planet. It's even arguably not a major solar system body, whereas Neptune is one of the giants, 3rd largest planet, next in order of size after Jupiter and Saturn.

Well that's my 2c. I'd be interested in your view about that.

Regards -- Terry0051 (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Honorverse articles

That which I feared has now happened. User:EEMIV has successfully pushed the merge of Imperial Andermani Navy‎ and now has

1. tagged Technology in the Honorverse and Weapons technology in the Honorverse with PROD’s;
2. blanked (that is, turned into redirects) Office of Frontier Security and State Security;
3. tagged for deletion (as AfD’s) Treecat, List of treecats and Honorverse concepts and terminology
4. Is about to do the same to Elysian Space Navy, Royal Manticoran Navy and probably others. Debresser (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. I did an AfD comment though unfortunately don't have time to actively work on these articles. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Steve Wozniak Apple Glasses.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Steve Wozniak Apple Glasses.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

CSD G7 --Marc Kupper|talk 21:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppet

hey, I am not a sock puppet. That was my first article, i felt somewhat strongly about the issue, and I did my best. I'm sorry if i filled your image of a sockpuppet, but oh well.--```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theverymodelofamodernmajorgeneral (talk • contribs) 23:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back to Wikipedia. I'm sorry about the sockpuppet accusation. Do you think you'll have time to work on the 6 star rank article? Andrewa and I worked on it for a while and then both of us got sucked into other projects though I think about this one at times. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I can try. any advice for a wikinewb?--22:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theverymodelofamodernmajorgeneral (talk • contribs)

RfC at Talk:Rajneesh movement

You have previously moved this page [1], commented at this page [2]. You have also previously commented at Talk:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) [3] and [4]. All of that took place prior to this RfC. That is why I had moved your comment into the Previously involved editors section - you were not a respondent coming to this discussion because of the posting at WP:RFC, and you are not previously uninvolved.

Please move your comment back to the Previously involved editors section. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 07:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider myself to be a "previously involved editor" particularly in light of the editor wars that apparently have occurred on those articles. While I did move the article that was more out of the ignorance that results from looking at web sites for 15 minutes and I fully agreed with the move being reverted. Thus that cancels out my "involvement." :-)

How about this as a compromise - we can delete the Previously involved editors section header. I see nothing in the RFC mechanism that supports labeling editors this way. In a sense this conflicts with WP:RFC#Suggestions for responding which states "All editors (including anonymous or IP users) are welcome to provide comment or opinion, and to assist in reaching agreements, by responding to requests for comment." A scan through the current discussions listed on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/History and geography finds that none of the others are using this. One thing I'm not sure of is the formatting for comments. I used a bullet for my comment but don't see a consistent pattern in the other RFCs. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up - I'm headed to sleep. If you have strong feelings about how to format the RfC then edit away on the Talk:Rajneesh movement page. It's unlikely I'll be checking back on WP for a day or two. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should keep the current formatting. In Requests for Comment on controversial topics that can tend to have multiple WP:SPAs commenting on the topic - it is very important to get and to denote feedback from previously uninvolved editors. And as you have previously moved this page, commented on its talk page, and commented on the talk page of Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh), and you are not an individual that found out about this ongoing Request for Comment by looking through listings at WP:RFC of other Requests for Comment - but in fact found out about this Request for Comment because you had previously been commenting on the page and watching the page - I request a 2nd time that you move your comment into the Previously involved editors section of the RfC. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Running Critical

the used book website alibris.com shows copies of "Running Critical" available —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjros61 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Third part opinion requested

Would you care to give a third party opinion here?

Thank you very much for taking the trouble the read this article, or should I say, "study" it? Your comment was much too the point and as much appreciated by all. Debresser (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)