User talk:Patrug/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Patrug, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

A historical perspective on moment in physics and mathematics

I have posted a comment in your article/discussion on 'moment'. Please consider my request to elaborate the historical perspective on the issue.Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. See Talk:Moment (mathematics) for a partial answer. —Patrug (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Flute players

Hello Patrug,

Australian (amateur flute player) here. Thank you very much for reviewing Victor McMahon and especially for cleaning up the citations. I am new to this Wikipedia thing (but enjoying myself immensely). Mostly I write and edit botanical pages.

I notice that you are compiling a list of flute players? There are some significant Australian flute players whose names are missing from the list, especially John Amadio and Leslie Barklamb. I guess that means I have to write articles about them! Okay, okay, I'll do it. In the meantime, you might be interested in this page and the sound of John Amadio playing a Paganini transcription: http://www.robertbigio.com/amadio.htm. (John Amadio was Neville Amadio's uncle and flute teacher. I have some stories [primary references] about that!)

Keep up the great work!

Gderrin (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Gderrin, gday! I enjoyed visiting Sydney & Canberra for the Aussie bicentennial. I'm sure you'll quickly figure out the technicalities of Wikipedia's Cite templates, Categories, Lists, Projects, etc. Congrats for the very well-written & well-sourced McMahon article. Your efforts on Amadio & Barklamb will be most welcome indeed. —Patrug (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Patrug, I've added a page on John Amadio. Can you have a look please. (It was hard not to get carried away with superlatives!) I worry about the way I have added "External links". Thank you. Leslie Barklamb and John Lemmone next. Gderrin (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Gderrin! A few suggestions (with relevant bluelinks) from a quick first glance:

• Add nephew Neville to the sentence listing John's virtuoso students?
• Feel free to edit List of flautists yourself anytime, and add any appropriate articles alphabetically.
• WP usually prohibits External Links to recordings that are still under copyright — need to check the regulations to confirm whether Amadio's have expired since the 1920s and entered public domain.
• WP guidelines generally prefer listing the most-specific Categories (like "Australian flautists", or "Australian classical flautists" if appropriate), and omitting the more-general Categories (like "Flautists") that are already included by those specific subcategories.
• For a footnote using the inline Template:Cite web, instead of listing a "website" title that basically repeats the URL, it's usually better to list a "publisher" indicating the source of the webpage, assuming it's different from the author. And it's always good to list a "date" for the source material when it's known (even if it's just a month or year).
• Whenever possible, webpages from professional organizations (newspapers, schools, orchestras, museums, etc) are more likely to satisfy WP's "reliable source" rule, rather than pages from non-notable personal websites.

Anyway, thanks very much for your post. See if you can work with these suggestions yourself first, and then I should have time for a closer look later in the week. Hope this helps? —Patrug (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Patrug - I'll do my best. (Still new to this.) Greetings from down under. Gderrin (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gderrin: Nice progress with those John Amadio suggestions. I see also that other editors created the Talk:John Amadio page with WikiProject tags to publicize the article to key subject areas — great if you can do this for other new articles that you create, too. Whenever you get a chance to fix those Cite templates (publishers & dates instead of duplicate website URLs, as detailed above), let me know and then I can try a more-detailed cleanup for you. Have a good weekend. —Patrug (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks mate - will do. Weekend: Thanks, I will - you too. Gderrin (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Patrug. I fixed the citations (I think) and added a bit more with a new reference. Thanks again. Gderrin (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gderrin: Excellent. You'll see I had just some minor cleanup after you took care of the bigger stuff. I restored your External Link to the older recording, since copyrights have apparently expired for practically all pre-1923 material. Looking forward to Barklamb and Lemmone, at your convenience. —Patrug (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Me again! Added John Lemmone (by mistake - pressed "save page" when I meant "show preview"). I hope there's enough there but I have lots more to add. Gderrin (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gderrin: Keep up your fine work, and I'll be happy to review any music article when you tell me the major additions are done. If you do expand beyond Aussies and tackle Kincaid, be sure to distinguish from his namesake artist by naming your article "William Kincaid (flutist)", to which several music articles are already red-linked. Four other prominent flute players (Samuel Baron, Harold Bennett, Lois Schaefer, Robert Stallman) probably deserve stand-alone articles, too, in case you get to them before I do! —Patrug (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Sheldon Silver

Patrug, thank you for adding in the physician. That is a really hot potato- he was boss of the mesothelioma center at Columbia. I think that the whole affair will need its own page- what do you think?

I put Silver on the list of bribed US politicians and saw that big cases have their own page, "Operation blah-blah". I just havent seen such a name published yet. --Wuerzele (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: Thanks for the note! Actually, I think you need to remove Silver from that list (for now), since he hasn't been convicted (yet). After the new Speaker is elected, Silver will virtually disappear from the news. I'd be surprised if we see enough further info to expand his corruption paragraph into an entire article. Anything's possible, though -- and it certainly is an interesting story. —Patrug (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. (...but why are you changing the way I spelled potatoe?) --Wuerzele (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Just remembering another of our illustrious politicians! Dan Quayle#"Potatoe" —Patrug (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Youtube links & blogs

While in general neither Youtube videos nor blogs our preferred sources, the "default assumption" that Youtube links provide generally present a copyright issue and that blogs are generally not reliable is not correct (anymore) either.

In the case of Youtube you could possibly argue such an approach 8-10 years ago, but not so much today. Since many artists, newscasters and other content providers run their own official youtube channels these days and simply use youtube as a (legal) distribution media, there is tons of legal material on youtube now and Youtube links in question need to be assessed on an individual case by case basis.

As far as blogs are concerned. First of all blogs as such is simply a type of software, whether the content published via such a software/format depends on the reliability of the publisher or author using it. Nevertheless arbitrary private blogs are rarely an appropriate source for anything in WP, but in even in that case it matters what content is actually sourced.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: I agree with some of your points. Still, let's avoid using an anonymous self-published fan-page for an unnecessary encyclopedic reference, unless you want to propose modifications to the WP:BLOGS policy on its Talk page.

By the way, thanks very much for your WP articles on advanced classical geometry. I taught & published on the subject years ago, and will try to help with some of these articles when time permits. Best regards! —Patrug (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

MS & sunlight

We at Wikipedia love evidence-based medicine. Please cite high-quality reliable sources. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. WP:MEDHOW walks through editing step by step. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Doc James: All the refs in MS#Geography are 5–14yrs old and Ascherio's review articles are highly uncertain on Vitamin D, while WP:MEDRS says "A primary source may be presented adjunctively to a secondary source." Can't the 2-yr-old primary ref be used as an adjunct here? —Patrug (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a primary source looking at an animal model. We need to use review articles not small animal model primary research sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

We have this 2013 review on the topic http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23154080 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Doc James: Certainly reviews are preferable sources, but in active research areas we don't want them to be too stale, either – thanks for adding the 2013 review to Health effects of sunlight exposure. I just added it to MS#Geography, too. —Patrug (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:ASCAP Award winners

Category:ASCAP Award winners, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor ^(talk) 19:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks. —Patrug (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Italian composers

Moved discussions to Talk:List of Italian composers. Let's continue there. —Patrug (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

John Scott (organist)

FYI, Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#RD: John Scott (organist), where you're mentioned. Bencherlite^Talk 14:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Bencherlite & Medeis, after today's flurry of support and improved refs, does the auto-archiving of the ITN nomination mean it can no longer be considered? —Patrug (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it will almost certainly be rejected as stale, items more than 7 days old are normally delisted unless there is a dearth of new listings. The one hope would be if you can show his death ocurred on the 12th, but wasn't announced until a later date. In that case, the listing should be reposted under the later date with an explanation that the news was not posted until that date. Then ping all the people who voted (whether the supported or not) point out the change of date and improvements, and ping Spencer, The Rambling Man, or Jayron32 as an univolved admin, (assuming the did not express support, and ask them to post it. Otherwise, the only other way is the WP:DYK process, which requires a major update to articles that have existed for some time. μηδείς (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Medeis:Thanks for all the guidance. His death was indeed announced promptly on 12 August, and I see that WP:DYK has its own 7-day cutoff, so those options aren't likely to help. At least if I'm in a similar situation again, I'll know to ping the ITN regulars before day 7. And the John Scott (organist) article certainly did benefit from the extra attention by senior editors like yourself. Even with incomplete citations for the Manchester review and award-winning recordings (and no permissible photo yet), do you think we've made enough improvements to raise the quality rating to B-class? —Patrug (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Be aware of this option at DYK: "Former redirects, stubs, and other articles in which the prose portion has been expanded fivefold or more within the past seven days are also acceptable as "new" articles.[1] The content with which the article has been expanded must be new content, not text copied from other articles. The length of both the old and new versions of the article is calculated based on prose character count, not word count. Prose character count excludes wiki markup, templates, lists, tables, and references; it is calculated using User:Dr pda/prosesize.js or a similar extension." It is a lot of work which you may not want to undertake, but I have seen it done before. Again, my apologies, because I completely missed this one until you pang me. μηδείς (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Medeis:The article expanded twofold with all the info I could find. A bit more will straggle in, but expanding fivefold doesn't seem feasible. I did just post a photo with fair-use rationale, and at this stage the text seems "suitably referenced with inline citations", so I went ahead and raised the quality assessment to B-class. Thanks again for all your suggestions. —Patrug (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Moved additional discussions to Talk:John Scott (organist). —Patrug (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Notables on lists

When included in a list of notable people from a place, the entry needs to have a source that connects the person to the place. The source you added in this edit to the article for Sayreville, New Jersey makes no mention of Sayreville, and will be removed. I've made searches now and in the past trying to connect Edward D. Thalmann to Sayreville, but I've found nothing. The yearbook source is rather weak, as it isn't clear that the Thalmann mentioned there is the same one in the Wikipedia article. Any help in finding an appropriate source that connects him to Sayreville will be appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Alansohn: A year ago, my search successfully found the 1962 newspaper article that independently provided a perfect match for Thalmann's rare name, home state, high school & graduation year as listed in his Wikipedia article by his daughters & son-in-law. There isn't the slightest doubt that it's the same person. For non-controversial info that nobody reasonably disputes, a contemporary newspaper article is an adequate secondary source. Given the context, I changed your "citation needed" tag to the more-appropriate "better source". —Patrug (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello and Thanks for the Thanks!

Have a great day!

Winterysteppe (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thanks! Agamemnus (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, recycling my petrodollars into pie! You are most welcome. —Patrug (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

GA & DYK nominations of OPEC

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article OPEC you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The article OPEC you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:OPEC/GA1 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your edits to OPEC, a vital article with 700,000+ yearly views in a nonpartisan, objective, thorough and very readable way, and now a good article. Well done! Tom (LT) (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@LT910001: Thank you for the barnstar, the GA review, and the DYK suggestion for OPEC. I posted it last night at Template:Did you know nominations/OPEC. Please feel free to review or comment there, too, since you already did the work to verify most of the DYK criteria in your GA review! —Patrug (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

On 13 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article OPEC, which you recently brought to Good Article status. The fact was ... that the 13 member countries of OPEC account for 40 percent of worldwide oil production and 73 percent of proven oil reserves? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/OPEC. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, OPEC), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Hey, nice work on the DYK! I'm ashamed to admit the first two messages are automated... but the barnstar is 100% from me :). What's next on your editing plate? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@LT910001: With Petrodollar recycling, as with OPEC, I've been the only substantive editor for awhile. So, any merger proposal would likely end up being my own decision. I'll probably try Petrodollar recycling as a stand-alone GA nominee, and if it goes smoothly enough, maybe I'll also nominate some of the mildly controversial (but concise) bio articles that I've upgraded as the headlines have unfolded: Sheldon Silver, Meredith Whitney, Timothy Wiltsey. Then if I get comfortable enough with the GA process, conceivably I could try to get OPEC to FA status, hoping I won't get pecked to death for my trouble... Patrug (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Petrodollar recycling

Suitable for GA? I encourage you to have a look and try if you want to, it is well-sourced. However, because of the short length of the article and the title, I wonder if it would be better placed as part of a larger article instead of a small stub. Do you think it might be better as part of a bigger article, say (I'm trying to think of a good name for it) something like National oil revenue or Petrodollar? The article whilst well written feels a little incomplete at the moment by virtue of its short length. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@LT910001: I see your point. For GA review purposes, I guess "broadness" is ultimately in the eye of the beholder. Petrodollar recycling already reflects a merge & re-direct from the even-stubbier Petrodollar article. Do you think it might make sense to append Petrodollar recycling to the end of the OPEC article as an entire new section, rather than just the passing mention in the middle of the OPEC#1973–1974 oil embargo summary? —Patrug (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Whoops sorry for not responding. I feel out of my depth responding here :). Best might be to propose a merge request and see what other editors think, or ask at a relevant WikiProject (if there is one) --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Please remember that disagreement is not vandalism, as you claimed in your edit summary at Talk:September 11 attacks. Acroterion (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't edit Talk:September 11 attacks, though I lived through them – and no, I didn't make a "Personal attack", as you irresponsibly claimed in your edit summary. Please don't post here again if you can't take the time to get your facts straight. As you probably know, the editor in question has received at least 8 blocks and 3 admin rejections for edit-warring, yet somehow considers his own editorial judgment superior to BBC, NYT, and the five Wikipedia contributors who assembled the well-referenced content that he summarily deleted as "conspiracy theory". You'll have to forgive me for not assuming his good faith. For now, I guess we'll just ignore professional reporting from world-class news organizations, until enough facts are published & analyzed to earn that editor's personal approval. Because after making just 537 edits to the article, he hasn't had enough opportunity to impose his point of view. —Patrug (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:MohammedBarkindo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:MohammedBarkindo.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Gugganij (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gugganij: No problem – thanks very much for uploading the free images and organizing the helpful new categories. —Patrug (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

William Kincaid (flutist)

Moved discussion to Talk:William Kincaid (flutist). Let's continue there. —Patrug (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1