This is an archive of past discussions about User:Pointillist. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Just FYI: The default importance for biographies of people in medicine is Low. The class could be either B or Start, depending on how complete it is. (Without actually reading it, I'd personally rate it as Start class based on length, with the option of an upgrade on detailed consideration.) Since you've suggested that JFW consider that issue, then I'll let him make that choice. Please leave a note on my talk page if you get no other response during the next week. BTW, if what you actually want is something more like a POV check, then you might post a general note on the project's talk page. I don't know how many people watch the assessment subpage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Basically I agree but I've been surprised by how often his name crops up in recent publications, which is why I thought perhaps JFW's perspective would be useful - after you've spent a lot of time assembling citations you need a fresh view of their value. Perhaps the real importance lies is the ideas Asher articulated and his sceptical attitude, rather than who he was biographically. He's a bit like Lord Denning - biographically not very interesting except for his effect on assumptions/attitudes in his profession. In the longer term, Asher's enduring ideas would be articles in their own right and his biography would be proportionally reduced. Short term, at least the article acts as a placeholder for a lot of citations that could be useful elsewhere and have not hitherto been correctly referenced. Pointillist (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The maps are absolutely great and my only question is whether my tables of landmarks are now needed - they look clumsy compared with your elegant maps - the region labels are fine - they don't clutter the maps at all. Well done, and thanks. Sorry I don't have any pictures of the start or know anyone who might. TrulyBlue (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I got the co-ordinates by browsing google maps and clicking on the relevant places. However, visually the co-ordinates look bad in the tables, and clickable links would be better even if they are no very wiki-style. Walking the course for photos would be above and beyond the call of duty. Best, of course, would be to have pictures of the landmarks with racing (or at least some rowing for the Championship Course wiki) in the foreground: a simple picture of Craven Cottage from across the river wouldn't add very much, I think. TrulyBlue (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of really tiny thumbnails (like the mockup below) so readers recognise the landmarks when they watch the race live or on TV. It was just an idea to make your useful table more inviting. Pointillist (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The University Stone lies on the south bank. The winner of the toss chooses their station (the Surrey station has won 10 out of the last 15 races).[1] In the straight section after the start the Middlesex crew tries to hold the fastest water on the centre line of the river.
'Craven Cottage': crews stay wide (preferring the Surrey bank) round the bend as the area in front of the football ground (known as 'the Fulham flats') is shallow, with slack water.[2].
Marked by a bust of Steve Fairbairn. A traditional timing point in the Boat Race. The Middlesex bank water continues to be shallow and slack all the way to Hammersmith Bridge.[2]
Previously the warehouse for the famous shop, now apartments. For the next 8-9 minutes the bend will be in Surrey's favour. The deep water channel now lies close to the Surrey bank.[2]
Coxes aim for the second lamp-post from the left which marks the deepest part of the river and therefore the fastest line. 80%-85% of boats ahead at Hammersmith Bridge have won, though only 50% in the last 6 years.[1] The turning point comes once the crews are under Hammersmith Bridge.
1.80 miles have been rowed and the direction and perhaps the wind and water conditions are about to change. The next 3-4 minutes are Surrey's last major opportunity to kill the Middlesex crew off.[1]
Crews must pass through the centre arch. 95% of boats leading here have won. Only one boat has won since 1945 when trailing at Barnes Bridge: Oxford came from behind this late in 2002. The Barnes Bridge corner is very tight: if both crews are level this is a real test for the coxes.[1]
^ abcdef"Rowing Chart"(pdf). Rowing on the Tideway. Port of London Authority. 2006-09-06. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
Wow, yes, that would be great - also reducing the font size for the co-ords is a definite plus. I don't know who has collected the various stats of number of times the leader at Barnes has been overtaken etc - Geoffrey Page's book is probably definitive up to about 20 years ago. Be bold and make the changes! By the way, have you any references for your slur on St Paul's? TrulyBlue (talk) 08:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
That all looks good to me, though the picture for the Crabtree shows Hammersmith Bridge and Harrods, but not the Crabtree itself - maybe the "landmark" entry should change to 'Crabtree Reach'? I'm guessing that the picture was taken from opposite the Mile Post - the caption could reflect that? The black bouy used to be a huge black barrel, lying horizontal in the water - that yellow peril seems to be in the right place, though this is what I remember it to be. Can't find any reference to it bein replaced or painted, so I'm at a loss, too. The famous lamp post is the second from the left after the tower - there are others between the tower and the bank, though this should be fairly obvious to any viewer. Great work, go for it! TrulyBlue (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - can you take one last look now please, including the text?
I guess the black buoy should be just downstream from that yellow thing that I had, and I think it is the yellow and black one I have now pictured (badly - I'll get a better one sometime - from Bishop's Park it does really look like a barrel).
I've changed the Crabtree Reach shot again: the actual pub is a stone's throw to the right of the picture but it is hidden behind trees that are now in leaf - I'll have to get a better shot next winter, but in the meantime the Crabtree is still the landmark even though it is not pictured. My very first Crabtree Reach shot included the pub but it was at low water and very grey (got drenched on Saturday).
The updated Hammersmith Bridge shot has a marker to show the lamppost. That's the right one, isn't it?
The Surrey crossing and the brewery are still to do (could be a challenge: lots of foliage on the Barnes/Harrodian stretch as I recall). Other images I'll improve when I next walk this way.
Motmit, thanks for that (and for improving the Chiswick Eyot layout) - much appreciated. Doing the Luas layout and the Boat Race thumbnails has given me some ideas about image handling in Wikipedia: do we need a "micro gallery" template instead of having so many pictures down the right-hand side (e.g. in Thames Tideway it's getting hard to match the images to the text); and would it be helpful if editors could upload a (sharper and more contrasty) image for thumbnail purposes (e.g. for the Boat Race landmark table the images have to be much crisper). I might try to get you involved in this discussion some day if you are interested. - Pointillist (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This is all looking good. Yes, that's the right lamp post, and that appears to be the black buoy in a new guise. As someone with a little knowledge of the course (yes, Isis in 87 plus a few HoRRs etc) I never did manage to work out where the Crabtree is - you tend to be right on the other side at that point, miles away (physically and mentally). I'd suggest the wording for Fulham is not quite accurate - yes, conventional wisdom is that the crew on Middlesex gets about 1/3 length advantage from the bend, but they should be ahead only if they're fast enough, if you see what I mean. The crossing is not very photogenic - no landmark per se, other than the poplars on Middlesex, and I don't think that every point necessarily needs a picture: after all I just cobbled together a list of points from my distant memory, and the Chiswick Steps mark a timing point but aren't mentioned (opposite Chiswick Eyot, I think). Time to put this live and see if there's reaction? TrulyBlue (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - On Tideway, I felt it needed illustrating and tried to select appropriate examples by section. If I had had your lifeboat, I wouldn't have bothered with the police boat so that would have avoided the section overflow there. The straight line down the right hand side is now a bit awesome, but for the river sections there is a natural sequence of views along the river. I don't really like galleries they seem too easy to ignore. Other editors don't like having the image size set so they have to be at thumb or they will get changed. As for crispness, there is a problem that people on the featured picture exercise don't care about the thumb, expecting people to enlarge what may be quite fuzzy thumbs - which is one of the reasons I take an interest in this from an Enc' point of view. The Tideway article is in an interesting position. It prevents the River Thames article from being too London oriented. The down stream sections have sub articles, but there are no sub articles for the inner and outer London sections so at the moment it has to do all the work for them as well. Regards Motmit (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Sort of related - you may be interested in the "upright" tag which I included in the William Hogarth article following your lead. Regards Motmit (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems to set the base of a portrait to the equivalent size as the side of a landscape image, giving them an equivalent area for the same dimensions. I did Hogarth as an example, so if you don't like it, do change it back. BTW I would like to move your ARA plaque to the logo in the info box if that's OK. Regards Motmit (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
In my tests (see User:Pointillist/lightbox) adding "upright" to an image seems to reduce the thumbnail width by approx 76%, rounded to the nearest multiple of 10.
Preferred width
If upright
Ratio
180
140
77.77%
200
150
75.00%
250
190
76.00%
300
230
76.67%
So if a page contains uploaded images whose sides have lengths in the ratio 180:140, and the user has thumbnails set to 180 pixels, then yes, you're quite right: landscape thumbnails will be 180 pixels wide and 140 high, and "upright" portrait thumbnails will be 140 pixels wide and 180 high so the area will be the same. Thanks for explaining that.
Image copyright problem with Image:Chiswick Eyot.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Chiswick Eyot.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Now, I see you made the case that the image is irreplaceable with a free alternative, but I'm not sure whether the image qualifies as fair use, since I don't see how the significance or the encyclopedic value of the image itself. Mosmof (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I took this photograph and I wanted to dedicate it unconditionally to the public domain to the maximum extent I can, which is why I marked it {{pd-self}}.
However, I know there are situations where a photograph of a cultural work can be restricted by the copyright in the original work. For example, if you paint an original picture and I take a photo of it, you still have the copyright in the picture. I can't make lots of prints of my photo and sell them, and I can only put my photo onto Wikipedia if it meets the fair use rules.
So I wanted to explain why I thought my photograph should not be restricted by the copyright in the design and execution of the doorway. My rationale is:
This is a low resolution photograph of a three-dimensional doorway (i.e. a piece of architecture).
The doorway dates from before 1923.
There is no copyright statement on the doorway.
The doorway was visible for many years on a public street.
It is now displayed at the James Joyce Centre, which does not prohibit photography of the doorway, or claim copyright in it.
If you don't like how the article is written, fix it yourself. Nobody here is required to bow down and follow your pronouncements, so if you want the article changed to fit your ideal it's going to have to be up to you to do the work. DMahalko (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
DMahalko, I haven't "run off feeling all smug" - I am working on it right now. The problem is that the article is full of inaccurate assertions that don't cite their references. Bear in mind that it can take a vast amount of effort to get each valid reference for Wikipedia. Believe me, I have intimately detailed technical knowledge about DTP and WYSIWYG software development from the late 1970s through to early 1990s. Relevant systems I used included IBM MC Composer, entire OS/6 range, Wang OIS, Xerox 860, 820, 8010 Star, I was a member of the BSI working party on SGML, interviewed and consulted to key users from the printing and publishing community. Even with all this it still takes me hours or days of effort to get independent evidence for each claim that I know to be true because I actually used the systems, wrote the software, have copies of the brochures, own slides showing the hardware (that I have to dust-off and scan before uploading etc). You've been around on Wikipedia some time I think, so you know the rules. Talk pages are for raising doubts, everything on an article page must be 100% objective with external citations to back it up. We both care about the articles, so let's be friends, eh? - Pointillist (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Good work on bed management. You beat me to the first big rewrite so I've just added my additional bit and will leave you to it. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that - probably needs someone with expertise in healthcare management to take it much further. Not sure what should link to it though. Perhaps you could make suggestions via Talk:Bed_management? Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
NHS "Paying twice"
First off, I didn't add the section you're talking about! It looks like it was added on 13th December 2007 in a set of alterations to what was there before. I in fact very much prefer the older text, looking at it. I think the education comparison stands up in as much as it counters the argument that it's unfair because you still have to pay tax whether you use the service or not. That argument is - for all the reasons you outline - a pretty stupid one, but hey. Anyway, we should probably discuss this on the talk page in case anyone else has views, so I'll post the old edit and the diff there. Nmg20 (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pointillist. Following your brilliant work on the Championship Course and Boat Race, I have a huge favour to ask you. The next time you're in the area of the Putney boathouses, could you possibly take some photos to ilustrate the above article? I threw it together but it needs illustrations and, given my lack of drawing ability, superimposing some arrows on drawings of actual equipment should make the meaning a lot clearer. If you don't generally frequent the area, no worries, and I'll try to remember the next time I'm near a boathouse, maybe Henley this year (I'm not near any boathouses these days). Cheers, TrulyBlue (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do - probably later in June after I've completed something else. Not sure whether illustration might be better than photography, e.g. like the rigging article on the BNC Boat Club site [1]. In my day gates were rather lower tech and covered with layers of mucky grease! - Pointillist (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, some combination of diagrams in the style of the BNS website and some real pictures may be the way to go - thanks for the link. When I learned to scull pitch adjustment was through the use of hammers. Photos would be great, but obviously this is low urgency. Cheers TrulyBlue (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Informal from article talk
Compete aside: I recently got shit (on WP:AN/I!) from an editor for using his real first name (despite it being a very obvious Google search from his userpage). Of course, mine is an even shorter step, since I mention it explicitly on my userpage (plus I don't think it's any kind of secret). But you might watch out for other editors who are touchy. On the other hand, seeing it brought a smile to my face, so y'know editors vary. LotLE×talk23:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I thought that as it was on your user page, and I was trying to be ultra-collaborative++ .... Anyway, point taken! - Pointillist (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I myself am absolutely and totally not offended. I think it's charming for people to use my outside name (and I sort of invite it further by bragging of being a "relevant expert" on the talk page). OTOH, when I used a different user's first name, I was completely jovial and light hearted, and didn't imagine any possible offense. I'm just giving you some (unsolicited) WP advise that... well, some editors who aren't me are weirdly touchy. LotLE×talk07:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Objective was really to try and bring together some of the sections that were scattered across the article and give it a bit more of a coherent structure. Generally I would have thought that the history of the event was more 'generally interesting' than the course, which is quite a specific factor. The 'average reader' arriving at the page is, I believe, more likely to be after the history than exact details of the course. I can have a bit more of a look at the layout shortly and see whether it can be improved further. Mrh30 (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you say that the "citations needed" template should be at the top of the article. I don't agree that is *always* true, and especially not on this case; but I won't fight over that.
Indeed, the "subroutine" article surely could use more references, especially on the history section. We could also easily add a couple of references that would cover most of the technical matter; I will see what I can do. However, the latter is so elementary that providing a reference to every statement would be silly. There are probably millions of programmers out there who could confirm the correctness of the artcile's contents, yet would be hard pressed to cite a reference for any particular statement.
OK, I've moved the "citations needed" template to the top of the History section. If you can put a couple of generic references into the References section (I imagine as bullets not as citations) that would make it a lot better. I still have a problem with statements like "Most computers before the late 1960s such as the PDP-8 did not have support for hardware stack registers." being unsourced. Sounds reasonable but how on earth would I verify it? What I find annoying is that the person who wrote this very likely did have a source in mind, but was just too idle to cite it. In any case, surely you don't have to have hardware stack registers to implement a stack, do you? AFAIK the B language (first developed on the PDP-7) supported recursion, but presumably had to implement the stack in software. Anyway, thanks for caring enough to reply. - Pointillist (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
RfA thankspam
Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.
Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.
Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message!
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Pointillist. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
stay safe and talk to you in 2009.--VS talk 11:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)