User talk:Weakopedia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Slovaks in Hungary

I'm looking for feedback (good or bad) on my actions in this case. I'd appreciated your comments here. Dpmuk (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid I am only able to give good feedback at this stage - when I saw the thread on AN/I I could see that what had been done prior to your involvement was not likely to assist the article, or the encyclopedia, or the article creator. That much was obvious. It was only when I started reading all the related rules that I discovered that this situation is common enough to have it's own rules, and the rules are precisely what you followed.

The only people arguing against you are people who seem to be trying to get around policy in order to advance some kind of deletionist/perfectionist/anti-foreign viewpoint, but regardless, I think you bravely stuck your neck out, despite a few vocal yet uninformed types trying to have a chop at it, and ultimately the article is now where it should be. Well done. Weakopedia (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

AE stuff concerning Lar, NuclearWarfare, et al

I misunderstood which section that it was being suggested some editors be excluded from. I've provided a further comment to correct that. But when I called the debate a "lot of silly nonsense", I was referring to the heated style in which many of the participants were commenting. I was basically suggesting that some of the participants cool down. My comment was not intended to downplay the importance of the issues being disputed; being a process freak, I enjoy debating these kind of finer points at least as much as the next person :-). Regards, AGK 12:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, fair enough, I agree with you that the debating style there is not the best. Thanks for the reply. Weakopedia (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Scibaby sock investigation

You should know that you are being investigated as a Scibaby sock. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scibaby

I have a question you may voluntear an answer, are you a WP:CLEANSTART account? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know - and the answer to your question is no, so I see no need to contribute to that thread. Weakopedia (talk) 08:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe I will make one little contribution, since one of the people who have already contributed have described Hipocrites actions as goodfaith, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Weakopedia (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstanding?

Are you under the misapprehension that I reported you at SPI? If not, you might want to clarify your comments. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you not? I saw your name as nominator and my name as accused and figured that's how it was. If I am mistaken then I will happily ammend my comments on the subject. Weakopedia (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I did not. I only added the first user, User:ClimateOracle. Then User: Hipocrite piggybacked on the open request (which is normal procedure, since Scibaby creates socks much faster than CU's close cases). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops then, thanks for clearing that up. My apologies for my mistake, my only defense is that the page does not make it at all clear to see, then, who actually made the request. Weakopedia (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom case

Because you have been involved in the recent SPI I am informing you of the arcom case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence Polargeo (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, not having to provide evidence for accusations is in my opinion a bad thing, so I shall follow that thread with interest. Weakopedia (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

For your knowledge

Just so you know, you put {{tl| when an edit request is done, so it isn't still up like {{tl|editsemiprotected}}. You can also do {{done}} to produce  Done. CTJF83 pride 18:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ooo, thanks very much - and I also get the point of the nowiki bits now. Cheers for that! Weakopedia (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, any more questions, ask away. CTJF83 pride 19:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For [1] which whilst technically might have been a PA made me smile, and you had a point too. --BozMo talk 12:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was a little frustrated just then since I felt I was trying to help, but my advice to anyone in that situation would be to not make what technically might be a PA and just get over it, so I might try and take that advice in the future. I'm glad the attempt at humour wasn't completely overshadowed though, thanks for your comments. Weakopedia (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Funny

You made me laugh when you posted this [2], especially the edit summary. Thanks for getting it and thanks for making me laugh. Minor4th • talk 06:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing was amusing me also, but sometimes I lack the tact to describe my amusement in the best way, so I am pleased that you appreciated the humour. Thanks! Weakopedia (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion

I just wanted to say thank you for your support on the matter. I felt like the topic was going nowhere and I just got tried of being accused of serving "Indian nationalism". Who knows though, maybe I'll be honoured with an entry in that article ;). Vedant (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: I'm not going to change the edit myself so as to reinforce the notion that I'm not pushing a POV which others seem to think I am. Vedant (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The addition of the picture was good for the article, that's all that should matter for any article. I think that IP is probably heading for a block, so best if you can ignore their comments that are not about content. I have left the note that unless consensus changes at the talkpage, I will restore the image after a short period to allow discussion. Weakopedia (talk) 07:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Ttonyb1‎

I thought we were supposed to use strikeouts, not simply delete, anywhere but on our OWN talk pages? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked it up before - WP:REDACT says that editors may remove their comments, or alter them, but in the event of replies to those comments to try and use strikeouts or inform the editors who have repliued in case they need to change their replies. But I have seen several AN/I threads where it was shown that users can delete their own posts directly if no-one has responded (they might have made an error in posting, for example, and wished to undo the comment). So I would say if Tony had replied, strikeouts would have been better, but as it is we should give the editor the benefit of the doubt and let them self revert. Maybe it just wasn't important enough to bother Tony with. Thanks for the question! Weakopedia (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Given that I have never edited that article, I am not sure why the message was left on my talk page. ttonyb (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I had guessed that it was all just a mistake... until the editor readded the message just now. Now I dunno, good luck with that :P Weakopedia (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

1982

I am not going to fight you on adding Frank Sargeson to the year; however, generally WP:RY is used to determine if someone is notable to be included in the years articles. ttonyb (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No fighting necessary! Truth be told, I hadn't read that - I was just going by the contents of the lists, as I cleaned up a few with no links and saw the general quality of the remaining entries. Feel free to undo me if I was wrong, and I will have a read of that page so I am more familiar with the inclusion policy. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Weakopedia (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you have no issue if it is removed, I'll go ahead and do so. Enjoy the day/evening and my best to you. ttonyb (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

WMC

I would normally assume you have seen it but your immediately prior comment indicated you had unwatched the page so I should draw your attention out of courtesy to [3] --BozMo talk 19:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I had unwatchlisted the page indeed, moved on and all. I think the big guy might not like me a great deal since I rather scathingly questioned his admin ability and indirectly got his mate blocked. But those are the trials of building an encyclopedia. I congratulate you on your courtesy, I've noticed that in general. Weakopedia (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Spits/zbergen?

Thanks for the input; I’ve replied here. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And again. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have replied again over at the talkpage of Jonas. By the by, I happen to speak Dutch and when they pronounce a word that has a T followed by an S, like Spitsbergen, the S comes out sounding like a Z, Spitzbergen. Whereas the Germans use Z a lot, the Dutch use S but pronounce it similarly - this may be the origin of the confusion. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well that seems to be the end of that conversation!
The only other thing I was going to say was, an added complication is that when Brits say/said "Spitzbergen" it’s as likely they’re referring to the whole archipelago anyway; so it's possible we should be reading it as Svalbard, not Spitsbergen at all.
The only other qualm I have over it is taking liberties with the source; ie where the source uses the z. It's been useful discussing it with you! Xyl 54 (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying - I guess it comes down to the source itself. I guess if I read a book about the history of Spitsbergen and they incorrectly said it had been named Spitzbergen by the Dutch, I might not trust the book so much. But if I see it in a book about mountains or sea ice or the war then I don't trust the book any less, so long as it is accurate with it's core material. So if I was to quote from a book that used Z "I would use Spitzbergen if in quotes", but if not in quotes I wouldn't have a problem changing that to Spitsbergen. And if they say Spitzbergen but mean Svalbard... then they haven't checked their facts so well! In that case, like I said, if it were a book about the history of the area I would not trust it's fact checking, but if it was a book about a flotilla during the war... well, they can't check every detail and maybe copied it from some war era logbook without thinking, I dunno.

Anyways, that is my opinion. I have not yet as a Wikipedian had to resort to offensive language to get my point across, even when disagreement arises, and it is a shame that others have and do. My advice is just to avoid them, there are much more fun things to be doing! Weakopedia (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted to the spelling "Spitsbergen" for the moment - not that I'm saying that it is correct. As you are probably aware, Jonas Poole (talk · contribs) is blocked for a week for incivility. Please see my comments at talk:Order of battle for Convoy PQ 18 re the spelling used and the source used to support it. Your thought on a RFC are requested there. This is a Wiki-wide issue, and one that is probably deserving of wider discussion than just on that article. Mjroots (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty, I will do so later today. I commented on this issue this morning (my time) within 15 minutes of waking up - not the best time of day for Weakopedias, and if I was at all bitey that's why. Apologies! I'll give it my full consideration when I get back to the computer in a few hours. Thanks for letting me know. Weakopedia (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Pride of Rotterdam

I use this for translations. Fakta om Fartyg just gives basic facts, which need to be put into prose format for Wikipedia purposes. Mjroots (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that you can improve the article, go ahead and do it! Mjroots (talk) 08:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

edit

Hi Weak, I went over and looked at that and I don't know how that happened. I wasn't trying to change anything. I was looking in the history at a diff, but that was in the middle of the history. Thanks for catching that. :) Malke2010 10:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I just this minute replied on your page. It's an easy mistake, since Twinkle works off of just one button press - there really should be some confirmation message to say did you really want to do that?. I don't use it, even though I enabled it, but that's my own preference. Weakopedia (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Epinephrine mediation

Hi Weakopedia, we have room for one more participant in the Epinephrine mediation. WikiDonn will be away and has suggested either you or JE19426 take his place. If you are willing to do this, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks. Sunray (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive reply. When you are ready, please sign in under "Parties' agreement to mediation" on the above page. Then go to the mediation talk page. I've asked participants to indicate their agreement with four requests, which I think will help us get a resolution. An opening statement is optional, though you would be most welcome to make one. We are currently examining the finer points of policy related to article naming. Ronk01 has responded to some questions I've asked. I would suggest that you respond independently (rather than replying to Ronk01). If you will be delayed, please let me know how long. Thanks. Sunray (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I have been researching the origins of the name itself, and the last four years of disputes over it on Wikipedia - now I have to get my shopping done, but in a couple hours I will sit down and reply to your specific questions, and maybe raise a few of my own. Thanks for the note. Weakopedia (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your statement. I've responded to your concern about how the mediation fits within the wider dispute. If you would like to continue, I need you to sign the parties' agreement to mediation. Then, would you be able to indicate your agreement with the four requests? Thanks. Sunray (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. I won't comment on editors as such, I don't think it is necessary, excepting to show that many of the editors fall into the small subset of people who use epinephrine over adrenaline. Any comments would be general and non threatening, not about specific editors or their behaviour. Like I said, this is bigger than two editors so any solution has to last and not be marred by personal attacks. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement that participants should avoid comment on other editors. We had begun to drill down on the policy considerations. In order to begin to focus the discussion, I've asked some questions under the subheading "Discussion," here. Ronk01 has responded. Would you be willing to also respond to the questions? For the time being, I have suggested that participants interact with me rather than each other. Sunray (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, did you get a chance to read what I posted on the page yet, or did you only have time to move it up the page? That comment contained numbered answers to your four questions. The nature of the posting I made on the mediation page is such that you could separate the four answers from the second, obviously separate, block of questions that I myself posed (which I bulleted instead of numbered to show a difference).

I posted directly below Ronk, and used the same numbered format as he, so it should have been obvious that I was answering your four questions - especially since I was answering them in response to a request from you on my talkpage to answer them. Anyway, the answers are there, I'll leave it up to you to reposition them as you prefer. Weakopedia (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, on re-reading your post, I realized that was what you were doing, so I moved it back to the bottom. I've created a "Further discussion" section to discuss your points and those of Ronk01. I think that the discussion has promise and I don't want to rush it. I will have further comments on the material you have presented, but would prefer not to have too many balls in the air at once. Sunray (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, whatever you think. This debate has been running for seven years already so there is no real rush. Weakopedia (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Epinephrine/Adrenaline Mediation

I have proposed a compromise on the mediation talk page that I think you may be interested in. Ronk01 talk, 05:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I looked at the article on nitroglycerin and it does seem like we could make this into a workable compromise. It might also encourage editors to add sources to the general article that they might not have considered for the technical article. I suppose the important thing is a lasting compromise, so if we try this approach then maybe we should try and have draft articles on both Adrenaline and Epinephrine to present to the community. Weakopedia (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Weakopedia, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for this. I discussed it here. I can tell you there are many similar situations. My efforts to apply WP:RS and WP:LINKVIO are being reverted en masse as vandalism and worse. Now I will consider WP:NOTE. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the AN/I thread, and I noticed that everyone was arguing in general but not over specifics. I have only looked at two articles so far, and whether or not MM is a reliable source made no difference in those cases - the "source" was being used inappropriately. I am guessing that is the case for many of the uses of MM in this case. So before I even think about whether MM is a reliable source, I think I can best check that all the uses of it you have identified were appropriate - after that I will start thinking about the general question, is MM a reliable source at all. Thanks for your comments. Weakopedia (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

My talk

I appreciate the intention, but your post to my talk page was inappropriate. If you can't interact with Lar or other editors without insulting him/them, then do not interact with him/them. Do NOT continue to fan the fires - that sort of behavior is unnacceptable. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, just because I was defending you in this case does not mean that all of a sudden I think you have helped foster a good working relationship on the arb pages. As was pointed out by one of your fellow clerks, you should have been doing more, and I don't even see how someone with a message on their talkpage saying "too busy in real life for consistency" would be asked to fulfill this role. But anyhoo, this was a case of someone having to say something, especially if you weren't going to do it. Also remember that the arb page is not the centre nor the whole of the universe - as I explained on your page my words were the culmination of several months of exactly the same situation repeating itself, and wikipedia doesn't stop functioning just because the arbs or their lackeys are too busy in "real life" to render a decision. Thanks tho. Weakopedia (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC for Media Matters for America at WP:RS

Hello there. You recently participated in a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the systematic removal of Media Matters for America as a reliable source. I've started an RfC regarding MMfA, MRC, FAIR, Newsbusters etc. Please participate on the Reliable Sources Talk page here. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I did participate in the original discussion but was disinclined to participate at the RFC. Thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Mediation closed

I've closed the mediation as successful. Thank you very much for your participation. I very much appreciated the constructive approach you brought to the table. I'm looking forward to seeing the three of you proceed with the development of the new article. Toward that end, you may wish to show some support for the proposal that Ronk01 put on the talk page. Best Wishes. Sunray (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Alas my participation, both at the mediation and on Wikipedia in general, was somewhat curtailed. Well done on successfuly mediating tho. Weakopedia (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Where is the adrenaline draft?

You were talking about making a draft for the article on adrenaline as a hormone. Where is it exactly? Can I see it please? --WikiDonn (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That's true, I was talking about it. Then I was involved in an accident that necessitated a hospital visit and my interest waned - sorry! I have not been able to make a consistent contribution, but when I am I shall begin at the Adrenaline article. Good luck! Weakopedia (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

So you're going to start it eventually? That was my only question, I was beginning to think you had abandoned it because you hadn't said anything in a while. Well, put a message on my talk page when you have a draft going, whenever that is. Thanks! --WikiDonn (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Civility

I don't think this is helpful at all. Please don't taunt people. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That was not a taunt. Some people are incapable of accepting advice or even the fact that they could possibly need advice - some people are similarly incapable of accepting that they could ever be wrong. Sometimes it is better to consolidate comment into something short and to the point, even if it appears pointy. It is not good to reward impetuous behaviour. My words adequately summed up the childishness observed without resorting to actual taunts. Nevertheless I thank you for the advice. Weakopedia (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Spitsbergen

message returned to sender
" Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles . Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Weakopedia (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)"
Do NOT accuse me of Original Research, when my statements, at least, have the backing of reliable sources, while yours consist mainly of bluster and innuendo.
Damned cheek! Xyl 54 (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

PS. And "our articles"? I've been here longer than you have, sonny, so don't be at it!

PPS You might, with profit, read this.Xyl 54 (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

For all your petty arrogance you really just don't get what original research is! You can't cherry-pick two out of all possible sources and say that because those two sources say Z and not S that everyone in a particular century said Z and not S. You need a source that says that in a particular century people said Z and not S. Anything else is unpublished synthesis, research that you have done to reach a conclusion - original research. I shall be reporting you to the appropriate noticeboard forthwith and we shall let the community decide if your interpretation is correct. Good day. Weakopedia (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you'd said this on the talk page,it'd be a bit clearer what you are talking about.

BTW forthwith usually means immediately; as there was nothing at WP:OR/N, I’ve filed it for you, here. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I said that on my way to bed - I guessed that if I did you would take the chance to beat me to it, and save me the bother of initiating the case. Thanks for that. This is the only post that I have time for today, I'll get to the OR page in the morning. If you remember I did try for some time to reasonably present a case about why Spitsbergen should be called that. I was rather civil for quite a while I thought, especially trying to calm Mr Poole down and get a common ground going. But after a while it gets frustrating. I took a break for some weeks, over a month, from editing any page involved, and when I come back it seems to me like the same arguments but just more bitter - sorry if that seems bad faith, but that's how it seems, especially when I see warring over what seems to me to be original research. Granted, Mr Poole has not helped matters with his style of editing, nor probably have I with my terse commenting, but somewhere in there there must be a compromise that is encyclopedic. I stand by the idea that some of what you inserted was original research, and I shall defend this at the OR page, but no hard feelings. Only no calling me sonny unless I can call you grandad! Weakopedia (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahh! Macchiavellian!!

And I do remember our early conversations; I found them thought-provoking and useful. And yes the debate has become pretty terse. But, it is not my intention to produce OR, (though I’ve regarded OR as synonymous with “making it up”, which I’m pretty sure I’m not doing) and I’m happy to get a wider perspective.

I am (I hope) amenable to any modifications to what I’ve said there, if we agree on the main points; do we, in fact, disagree that much?

I accept the current paradigm in english is the s spelling; I can acknowledge the place was named by Barents (I admit the bit I wrote about Barents using a German word was a bit tongue in-cheek, as I was fed up of being told it was Dutch; but I am genuinely interested in the derivation, for the reason I said). Also, it does need a citation, and I don’t know why Jonas is so cagey about providing it.

But, my finding is that the Brits were using the z spelling throughout the 19th century, and well into the 20th (and is my own experience), and I resented being greeted on the page by a big “fuck-off” notice telling me that I (and every other Brit over the age of 40) was wrong; especially as I believe the story is more complex than that.

So, do you think we can try again? Xyl 54 (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

PS:Yeah...sorry about the "sonny"; I was pretty miffed! Xyl 54 (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We definitely have a complex story, but an interesting one, and I am sure that somehow we can find a middle ground. I quite like that one of the phrases I suggested was original research actually 'belonged' to Mr Poole - I was looking at the phrases themselves without regard to who added them, only considering whether it was published fact or OR.

By the way, OR is just a wiki term, it doesn't have to be a slur - one of the examples they give of OR is that it doesn't matter if you can find a dozen scientists and newspapers saying that the sky is blue, it is only when you find a source that says the sky is always blue that you can say so on-wiki. There is scope to add information like this if it is unlikely to be challenged - that the sky is blue we could probably all accept, but the Spitsbergen thing is not so obvious.

To look at this specific example, we might be able to find a dozen instances of people of a particular period using SpitZbergen but if we find even one example of someone using SpitSbergen during that same period then are in a more difficult position to generalise. For that reason wikipedia requires us to find a source that says during this time period most people used X spelling, or to be careful about how we present the individual instances of one spelling over another that we do not use specific examples to support an overall synthesis that is as yet unpublished.

I agree that perhaps too much emphasis was being placed on Conway's quote and reasoning, and I think we can present basically the same information as what is already there but in a more sustainable way - a way that is less likely to be challenged. I will take another look at the sourcing during this day and see if I can propose something. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I’m happy to wait on that, and see what you think.

On the subject of the comment “"Spitzbergen" became the common English term after 1694"; on the 24th I had posted the reply “AFAIK the Brits called the place “Greenland” up until they started calling it “Spitfbergen” (long s ) and when the long s went out of fashion changed it to “Spitzbergen” ”; the source for that was this from 1780. In 1808 it was the same, but 10 years later it had changed. I don’t know if that’s any help at all...Xyl 54 (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I am here and examining the issue now. Weakopedia (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As to the long s, I was looking at that this week for a different matter - I have some books from the 1750s and it starts being obvious that they used the long s just as they would have used a normal s, and then added normal s's as well to pluralise things and for a few other reasons. I have similar books from the 1820s, and by then the long s has vanished and normal s's used in it's place. In 1759 t is all words like fpeak (speak, I don't have a long s), fuppofed (supposed), fhips (ships, the plural takes a normal s at the end of the word) - so I think that in general the long s was substituted by the short s, and in this case that would mean going from writing Spitfbergen to Spitsbergen.

I would note that in the example you give from 1818 it also uses z for Barentz (not Barents or Barentsz) so again we have a specific example, but not a general rule.

In general I am happy to write it all like this - that in year X person X said S but in year Y person Y said Z - and avoid reaching a conclusion that says during this period everyone used spelling S or Z.

This is the first part I have looked at, I am just going through it all bit by bit and will write down what I think as I see it. I guess that you are not at the computer for some hours yet so you will probably see it all at once anyways. Weakopedia (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

To add to that, in the 1750s they still had the letter z as well as s and long-s - the word furprize (not a prize of furs) became suprize, but is now surprise! But they still had z's and used them before and after losing the long-s. As to how that affects things - well, increasingly my point seems to be that we have a lot of specific examples, and not many general rules! I am continuing to look... Weakopedia (talk) 07:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I believe you already said that you think that the article should be called SpitSbergen - it seems like all we disagree with is in making too many conclusions about just how widespread the S or the Z spelling were a hundred years ago, 250 years ago. Again, I am fine with including what examples we have, and just avoiding making too many conclusions along the lines of during a particular time EVERYONE used this spelling or that spelling, simply because the further back we go the less source material we have access to, so the danger of us reaching a conclusion that is not accurate increases. Weakopedia (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

To answer our last point first, yes, I'm OK with the article being "Spitsbergen", and yes, it's the description of the British use of the "Spitzbergen" spelling which bothers me/is the sticking point.

As far as the long s is concerned, you are probably right; they seem to be transliterated as s these days ( you can do them like this 'ſ', BTW, or this 'ʃ', or maybe even this '∫', though there’s not much call for it)

I notice the page is protected, for a week, so that gives us a breathing space; maybe we can thrash something out in that time.

If this is of interest, I was able to check the Times digital archive over this; which offers searches of the The Times from 1785 to 1985. What I found ( and this probably is original research!) is:

There is no mention of the place between 1785 and 1815; between 1815 and 1905 (Conways time) Spitzbergen is mentioned 603 times, and Spitsbergen 27 times ; in the last decade (1895 to 1905 it is 261 to 17.

The decade after Conway (1906 to 1915) it is 341 to 10; then in the next (1916 to 1925 it reverses, 132 to 321; a lot of references are to do with the treaty (and there’s a letter in 1918 from M Conway, saying much the same as we’ve seen, in an exchange with a prof Haverfield. Also a report of “the OU expedition to Spitsbergen” which refers to the “expedition to Spitzbergen”, that ambiguity again)

After that the usage is divided; in 1926-35 it is 387/395, then in 1936-45 it is 180/133, then in 1946-55 it’s 32/72, then 1956-65 it’s 56/48, then 1966-75 it’s 61/110, then 1976-85 it’s 29/37; so there was a general decline over time of the z spelling after the treaty, though not as definite a change as in American English. And official sources seem to have stuck with the z spelling longer (which we've already looked at.)

It isn't particularly usable, but I thought it was interesting as background.

As far as the article goes, where it says "The islands were known as "Greenland" in English during the 17th Century <ref.Fotherby," and "They were referred to as Spitzbergen in a translation of a text by Martens, in 1694, and this became the English name thereafter", it could maybe read "were referred to as Greenland by Fotherby in 1613,<ref. a practice still followed, in 1780 and criticized by Bacstrom at that time<ref."

And where it says "though "Spitzbergen" remained the common British spelling throughout the 20th century", it's probably more accurate to say "remained a common British spelling for much of the 20th century."

And the phrase "though this had little effect on British practice (nature)(FO)", could be phrased "though the report on the expedition used "Spitzbergen", as did the British Foreign Office in 1908"

For the 19th century period, would it be reasonable to say "the "Spitzbergen" spelling was used/(or "in use") during the 19th century, for instance...".

BTW this is all on your talk page at the moment; is it worth userfying it, or are you OK with it being here?

Anyway, time to call it a day. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I like this compromise, it says what we can prove and doesn't speculate too much. I am sure we can work on it to have something ready by the time protection is lifted. Why don't I copy this over to the article talkpage as a possible solution and we can continue the discussion there. I am not so bothered where it is discussed, but of course one third of the contributors (ie Mr Poole) has not been involved in reaching a compromise and is likely to disagree with parts, if not properly presented. So, I'll condense our suggestions down into a replacement passage, post it at the talkpage, and see who wants to discuss it - hopefully by the time protection is gone we can have a good article and also agreement across the board. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 05:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry for the delay; I’ve not been around much these past few days.

Posting this on the article talk page is a good idea; I wasn’t sure if you were waiting again, or whether you’ve not been around either, so I’ve done the "bold" thing and posted it, here. I trust that’s OK. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely - I have had limited computer time the last few weeks (my last contribution was the post above) so rest assured I am still involved, just limited to how many posts I can make per day. I will head over to the article now and see what's new. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This has been overtaken by events; I was going to drop you a line to say I won’t have much computer time for the next few days, and was going to suggest requesting an extension to the page protection. But your “nuclear option” seems to have had an effect. I hadn’t thought of that!

And you’re probably right about feeding trolls; I’m hopeless for getting drawn in sometimes.

Be seeing you!. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi; back again. We seem to have run out of steam, a bit: I’ve left a post here to move things on a smidgen; what do you think? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I stepped back after Jonas got booted so as not to seem like trying to impose my will or something sinister like this. I'll check out the talkpage just now - I see someone edited the article overnight, maybe solving some of the problem, or maybe worsening it! I'm not sure yet.

Basically I think all the current participants agree on the basics, and I think we are all more aware of when we are making conclusions that we can't definitively prove, so I trust that, first, if you change the passage it will probably be more or less acceptable to all, and, second, that we can collectively edit it without getting into a fight. So I would say, go for it! Weakopedia (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Strike!

<s>text</s>. I;'ve fixed it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, cheers for that. I was confused at the time - I thought you had said that you redirected the article, but when I checked the article history you hadn't. Only maybe I checked the article it redirected to because now I see I was right the first time! Regardless of whether it should or shouldn't be redirected, it's unfortunate that it should be you that wars with an admin to have it so - for your own good if no-one elses you should probably stay out of that kind of thing. Weakopedia (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The article history is confused by the move, perhaps. But certainly I redirected it: [4] William M. Connolley (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The new Adrenaline article

I was just at a code blue (cardiac arrest) and for some outlandish reason, the moment I walked into the room I remembered that we needed to work on the new Adrenaline article. Message me if you have any ideas of suggestions. (By the way, a timely dose of Epinephrine/Adrenaline and a couple of 360 J shocks brought the patient out of v-fib.) Ronk01 talk 08:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like an episode of E.R. really - we need that adrenaline article doctor, stat! (by the way, do you guys really say that, and if so does it ever creep into real life, like I want three big macs and a coke, stat!).

I am sure we can find enough to start an article on adrenaline, we already established that, but where to begin? That was my problem - I can find references about the history of the discovery and how use spread, I can find sources about how the naming progressed, and I can find sources about modern use of the term, but I get stuck at the first line with Adrenaline is....

In fact, I think it quite important to have a good introduction - despite our general agreement there may be those who see the article on Adrenaline and argue for it's merger into Epinephrine, so to keep the Adrenaline article stable it really needs a good introduction that explains why there is a spearate article for each.

I think with a good intro the rest of the article will be easy to flesh out - can you help?

By the way, you asked if I was a medical professional (since I knew about Doc Takamine's experiments) - I am not, it just happens that the discovery took place right in the middle of a time period that I have a lot of sources for. I read about Takamine in an issue of Scientific American from around the beginning of the 20th century. Weakopedia (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, yes, we do actually say stat (it's short for the Latin word statim, which means immediately) (but not as often as Grey's Anatomy or ER would have it). As for accidentally letting it slip into normal (ie. sane) conversation, I did go into Starbucks once and order a grande almond latte STAT! I got some really weird looks before I figured out what was wrong.

As for the article, I would love to help out, in fact, I have a user subpage that I have set up as an article incubator here. I can help with much of the physiology and chemistry (we can poach some of it from Epinephrine). Ronk01 talk 21:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a comment on where to start here, and for consolidation purposes, I think we should move the discussion there as well. Weakopedia, I think you should post a link to your sources there. Ronk01, I also think you should put a link to the draft on Talk:Epinephrine and request that others help with the article. Do you think that is a good idea? --WikiDonn (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

RFE

I undid this [5]. You're right, but it needs an uninvolved admin to do it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a link to where that is specified, that an uninvolved admin must close a case? It seems like the community hath spoken with it's silence. Weakopedia (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

In this instance, it would probably be appropriate for Weakopedia to close, the discussion had ended, and it seems to me that as part of the Arbitrated dispute, William M. Connolley should not interfere with these discussions. 12:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! By coincidence I was just this moment looking at your draft page for Adrenaline, which I shall add to shortly. Weakopedia (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Adrenaline Article

Do you still have those sources for the Adrenaline article? If so, could you email them to me (if possible)? Thanks. Ronk01 talk 04:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The new Adrenaline article (2)

I've gone ahead and copied some text from the epinephrine article as a base. We'll probably rewrite all of it later, along with expanding on what's available, but this gives us a start. In fact some of the text could probably be removed from the epi article entirely (i.e. "Adrenaline Junkie"). In any case, I've let Wikidonn know this as well. Ronk01 talk 15:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't find the article. Weakopedia (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It's User:Ronk01/Adrenaline Ronk01 talk 01:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll take a look. Been avoiding wiki for a bit to be honest. Thanks for keeping me in mind. Weakopedia (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh good, we're all here! What a strange coincidence that we all came back on the same day. I would say that I have been avoiding wiki for a bit as well, maybe I should have said I was on a wikibreak, but it was more like wikrastination... Maybe we can get to work now? --WikiDonn (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a real life issue, but we should see what we can get done before the New Year. Ronk01 talk 20:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

RMS Empress of Canada

I'm posting here instead of on RMS Empress of Canada because I don't like discussing too much the vandalism issue - beans you know. It is often a challenge to discern valid edits from vandalism by yes, unregistered users - but when did I say it's not worth trying? I do value IP contributions (didn't used to) so there's no kneejerk reaction - I am always careful, double checking and reverting my revert when I catch a mistake I made. It's happened that I reverted an IP as facts vandalism and on re-checking see that IP was actually reverting a vandalism on the edit before, mistakes happen.

It does say (somewhere) on one of the welcome pages that edits by registered users are less rigidly scrutinized. It's not because of some kind snobbery, you should see the IP vandalisms we get per minute. You been here a while, ever go in rc? Also I would venture that WMF does value the opinions of it's editors. I was going to ignore your post under don't feed the trolls but I see that you're a respected editor. Rudeness isn't necessary even if you are currently disillusioned with Wikipedia. SlightSmile 03:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I made a reply on the RMS Empress of Canada talk page. SlightSmile 02:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Congrats. You know, rudeness is as rudeness does, or something like that. I have indeed been around, and I have seen many good contributors have their contributions reverted simply because they hadn't registered. So in the great scheme of things, if I was to put your pain on the scales of life with that IPs pain on the other side, they would probably be about equal, don't you think? Anyways, the object is to ensure that everyone examines the edits before examining the editors, regardless of whether they are registered or not, or at the very least highlight the need for doing so. Job done. Weakopedia (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

COI editing

I was stunned by the hostility of this post. Did I say something that offended you? If so, I apologize and assure you I intended no offense. I am beginning to wonder if perhaps English is not your native language. Please don’t take offense if it is, but here is the reason I wonder: You correctly quote John of Reading as saying, “I recommend that you don't try to do this”—this is not a prohibition in English. And you correctly quote Gonzonoir as saying, “you shouldn't write an article about a subject with which you have close personal involvement”—again not a prohibition in English. As you point out WP:COI says COI editing is “strongly discouraged”—John of Reading and Gonzonoir’s recommendations are in line with that guideline; indeed they are, if anything, weaker than the guideline. (BTW, with regard to quotes and apostrophes, although the MOS prefers straight versions to curly versions, MOS applies only to articles. I will continue to use curly versions as convenient in forums and talk pages.) —teb728 t c 22:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, if you have read my comment and still think that I was somehow lacking in my use of English or was particularly hostile then perhaps you are overly sensitive or just not clever enough. I'll let history and your peers be the judge of that one.

The COI page doesn't just say that COI editing is this, or that, or the other thing. It says quite a lot about COI. Not so the two editors on the help page. They each said that the brand-new editor asking for advice shouldn't start the article they wanted to. If you think that was comprehensive advice based on the essential elements of the COI page then you probably aren't capable of understanding just what the COI page says in its entirety.

You see, they could have advised the editor how to go about requesting that the article be created, or how to create the article while avoiding the COI pitfalls, but they didn't. They simply said that he shouldn't be doing so.

Your idea of reality does not seem to sit well with the sequence of events, but that was evident the moment you butted in with "Hey, no-one said he shouldn't..." when they quite obviously did, and "Hey you are the only one saying this..." when it was a quote from policy - something your helpful friends, and your good self, failed to do.

You honestly think that a new user, coming to the Wikipedia helpdesk, asking about creating an article and having been told by several editors that he shouldn't, would have any impression other than he shouldn't?

You appear to be living in a dream world - but despite your lack of understanding, and the lack of good faith displayed by your two friends, the new editor in question now has a better idea of how the policy that was thrown at him is to be interpreted. If you have anything further to say on the subject I direct you to the helpdesk thread where I will reply if you become interesting. Until that fateful day, farewell. Weakopedia (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary

I don't know if it was your intention, but this edit summary came off as rather snide. At the time I put that particular tag on the page, there was exactly 1 citation, and so it was entirely proper to put that tag on. LadyofShalott 01:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No, if I had wanted to be "snide" I would have done so, and you would have known about it. I made no reference to anything other than the article has enough citations now - I certainly never mentioned you in any way, and since we both agree that there are now more references than when you applied the tag, I really don't see your problem. Do you have some kind of a persecution complex, here on Wikipedia or in real life? Actually, don't answer that as I don't really care. Do feel free to return to my talkpage any time, but next time try and make some sense please. Weakopedia (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul Hopfensperger

Excuse this intervention. I see that like me you made comments on Paul S. Farmer recently, and wondered if you'd noticed an autobiography of Paul Hopfensperger a geographical and political "relation" of his. I think you would be interested. If this is an inappropriate thing to do, and/or the wrong place, then I apologise. --Errater (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I am certainly interested in COI editing - you can see above that I have spoken out in defence of some who have been accused of COI, and my opinions are formulated on a case by case basis.

As for your comments being inappropriate, I would say not - attempting to skew a vote by contacting only people you know will vote one way or another would be considered WP:Canvassing, but contacting people who simply have an interest in the overall subject and have shown no propensity to consistently vote one way or the other would not. Thanks for your interest. Weakopedia (talk) 06:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Retagging

Hi. If somebody else removes a tag you've placed and you disagree with that removal, the thing to do is discuss your continued concerns at the article's talk page. That's the way the consensus process works. In this case, two people have disagreed with you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a willful misinterpretation of the rules on tagging, as I am sure you are aware. Your attempts at ownership of the article in question seem second only to the subject of the article itself, and do you no credit whatsoever. Weakopedia (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to defend my interpretation of the community's approach to tagging at any appropriate dispute resolution forum. I feel very confident that community consensus at this point is that one contributor may not keep putting tags back on an article when multiple other contributors are removing them. Your accusations of ownership likewise seem out of keeping with WP:OWN. I am as entitled to an opinion on the matter as you are. Note that I was not the first to remove the tag; that was User:Kittybrewster, who found the listing at WP:COIN, where it is right beneath a listing placed by Kitty. If consensus supports the restoration of the tag, certainly it should be restored. The article's talk page may be the place to discuss it, or you are welcome to add your comments to the COIN listing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do your soul searching at a more appropriate venue. Weakopedia (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Conservative/liberal

Thanks for your help in finding the right word. I will change the article.--Greatgreenwhale (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to have been able to assist. Good luck. Weakopedia (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Mark Ereira-Guyer

Would appreciate your advice on this, my first attempt at construction. Fuly realise it may not be worthy enough, either the subject nor my technique. --Errater (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've offered my opinion over at the article talkpage. The article itself was well-enough written, and you included several reasonably-formatted sources, so as far as article creation goes you have had no problem with the basics. I understand you want to write about what interests you, if you check the notability guidelines first you will have less chance of your articles being considered for deletion. Weakopedia (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)