User talk:EricEnfermero

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Talk

Questions? Comments? Advice? Talk to me.

Happy Easter![edit]

All the best! "Carry me down, carry me down; carry me down into the wiki!" (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Editing Dispute[edit]

JohnRoe76 here...I don't see why you refuse to talk to me directly. You use SineBot to delete these posts I make on your page rather than responding. Please let me know why you don't want to have dialogue.

I didn't know of any dispute and see that we haven't had any editing interaction in ten days. SineBot signs your talk page posts for you if you don't know how or if you forget to; it really doesn't have anything to do with removing material from talk pages. If you have any ongoing concerns, you should raise them on the talk page of the article in question so that there can be community input into your questions. Thanks. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Biologists[edit]

So after almost 2 weeks of being blocked I decided to write 2 articles on biologists: Pablo Visconti and William Jeffery. They meet notability but my grammar is a concern (since that's what alters facts). Can you be so kind to copy edit them for me? Many thanks.--Mishae (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Misha - I did some copyediting, but I am concerned about the factual issues. I don't have the necessary expertise for these highly technical areas - and I'm at a disadvantage only having access to the abstracts of these studies. Even so, I think some of this is wrong. For example, in the Satoh and Jeffery study, I think the authors were simply reviewing other studies. I don't believe that Jeffery did the original work with those larvae or discovered the Manx gene. Similarly, the last sentence of the Visconti article (about heads and tails) is too vague to be meaningful, but I don't have the expertise to accurately fix it. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for copyediting. I think @Animalparty: will be of help when it comes to factual accuracy. The last sentence is (in my opinion) miningful solely because it was one of the highly cited. I seen other (more highly cited) works by him, but the concept was a bit different (like, same tadpole study, but much less meaningful, in my opinion, studies). Unfortunately, English is my second language, so don't think that I am trying to POV something or to distort facts in a malicious way.--Mishae (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
No worries. I know that you are doing this in good faith. By "meaningful", I'm not saying that the notability of the research work in question. It's just the meaning of the sentence - is there enough info in the sentence for a reader to know what is going on? For example, what does "head and tail" really mean? If we are unsure of what it means, it might be better to go with a generic statement like "X is also known for a 2006 study of in vitro fertilization in (kind of animal)." EricEnfermero (Talk) 17:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
In this article it means head or tail of a tadpole, obviously its not coin tossing. Face-smile.svg--Mishae (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's referring to the heads and tails of sperm, not actual tadpole heads or tails. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Weird. I was thinking that it was referencing to the head or tail of a tadpole, since a sperm doesn't actually have either head or tail. Or amphibians are different?--Mishae (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Our article on sperm refers to a head, a midpiece and a tail. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

What section is that? I have scrolled through the whole article didn't found a single mention of a head or tail being mentioned.--Mishae (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
First sentence of the body of the article, which is the Anatomy section. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Yep, just found it. Learning something new every day. Pity, I don't know as much about biology as my brother does. Fortunately, people who know less, have more time for writing articles. Face-smile.svg--Mishae (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Links to Burke's Peerage & Baronetage (& qv. Who's Who)[edit]

Hi Eric - thank you for your advice ref "External Links" (which presumably supercedes Wikipedia:Offline sources). In publications such as Burke's Peerage & Baronetage invariably the cross-referencing is so numerous and detailed that to state them all would be confusing - hence previous guidance simply as "External Links". How is it that Wiki references Who's Who in this way, but not Burke's PB? Thanks again. M Mabelina (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "to state them all", but I think the issue is pretty simple. I would not support an external link to Who's Who that was used in the same manner that you've attempted to use this external link. EricEnfermero (Talk) 13:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Please see User talk:Anglicanus - this guy just goes on and on - I bow fully to his and others' knowledge of Wikipedia but it seems to me that Anglicanus is on a mission as far as I am concerned. His behaviour is really quite incredible & somewhat eery to be honest, not to mention frustrating. This combative approach is leading nowhere productive (apart from perhaps tickling his fancy). M Mabelina (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems like a lot of the recent stress has related to Burke's PB. I wonder what would happen if you were able to disengage from adding any Burke's PB-related content for a bit. The encyclopedia and its 4 million articles are begging for other types of contributions - things like copyediting and expansion (with sources other than Burke's PB). You'll run into people on WP who have different approaches, but you can only control your own actions. If you start avoiding this contentious area where you have run afoul of WP guidelines and you still feel hounded at that point, that would tell us more about the nature of the problem. EricEnfermero (Talk) 15:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Walden's Path[edit]

Hello Eric. In India, a school is given permission for grades K-12, but students are admitted until 6th or 7th grade since all students will have to take board exam (ICSE or CBSE or SSC board) in 8th grade and hence the school cannot admit new students in higher grades. Few ICSE (Indian Certificate of Secondary Education) schools can admit students for higher grades, who will take ISC Exam (Indian School Certificate) in grades 11th and 12th directly.

Walden's Path is affiliated to CISCE Board which offers ICSE and ISC certifications and has permission for grades K-12, but the school is admitting students for grades 1 through 6. This is true for all schools affiliated to CBSE or ICSE Boards or even Sate boards such s Telangana Secondary School Certificate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramyakr (talkcontribs) 16:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'm sorry for the confusion. EricEnfermero (Talk) 16:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)