User talk:Kier07

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

Nice edit to Theorem, I've been wondering how to expand the article as its WP:MCOTW and you seem to have found the way.

BTW have you considered joining WikiProject Mathematics, you can add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Participants and join in general discussion at WT:WPM. --Salix alba (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics CotW[edit]

Hey, as per your good edits on theorem, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 22:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Dartmouth College[edit]

WikiProject Dartmouth College

As a current or past contributor to a related article -- or an alumnus/na of the College -- I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Dartmouth College, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Dartmouth College. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Dylan 19:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oort cloud[edit]

I think I've fixed your issue. Serendipodous 11:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Article whose FAC you commented on before, up for FAC again[edit]

FYI, an article that you gave comments on during a previous FAC a while back, is up at FAC again. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Early life and military career of John McCain. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare's Influence[edit]

Hello SouthernNights. Upon seeing that you reverted my edits to the Shakespeare's influence article, I perused your user page and saw that you were the originator of this article. No doubt you feel a special pride, and a special responsibility to protect it.

Please understand: I was not trying to harm the article; I was trying to improve it. It is official Wikipedia policy that unsubstantiated, implausible claims should be aggressively weeded out. Among the things coming from the Jayne Aden paper: "Shakespeare used around 20,138 new words." This strikes me as bordering on patent nonsense. Depending on how it's counted, this is more than Shakespeare's entire working vocabulary. The Shakespeare's influence article itself says earlier that "It is widely assumed that Shakespeare himself introduced more words into English than all the other writers of his time combined, over 1,700 by some estimates." The figure 20,138 is off by an order of magnitude!

No, I do not think Jayne Aden's paper was ever a legitimate source. She is not a Shakespearean scholar; she was an undergraduate at Black Hills State University at the time she wrote the paper. Of course, this doesn't necessarily disqualify the paper -- undergraduates do sometimes get their research published in journals. But I don't think Aden's paper was ever published. It was a paper for a course, English 426 (History and Structures of English), taught by one Roger Ochse. It seems he put his students' papers up on the web, but he's no longer a faculty member there and the link is no longer active.

If this were a dead link to a journal article, I would understand that it's still a legitimate source. Because in that case, it's verifiable; one can go find the journal and read the article, and presumably the article was peer-reviewed. This is not the case here. For all we know, this paper literally no longer exists. And I don't see any evidence that it was a legitimate scholarly work to begin with. My objection is, I think, a reasonable one -- and the burden of proof rests on you, not me. (You claim it's an acceptable resource. Back up your claim.)

I have no interest in getting involved in an edit war with you, or getting emotionally involved. I will respect that this is "your turf". I was simply trying to improve Wikipedia... I think it's a shame if you are unwilling to let change come to an article that badly needs to be changed. Believe me, with references like Aden's paper this article will never be featured article material. Kier07 (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you're overthinking why I reverted the edit. Personally I agree that the reference is a weak one and that the info on the number of words created by Shakespeare is closer to 1700. While I created the article, I sure as heck didn't enter that reference or information (my original version is far shorter and lacks those sections altogether, as seen here).
The reason I reverted your edit is two fold: First, your edit summary mentioned only the dead link issue, which isn't a valid reason to remove a reference. Second, aside from the wrong estimate of created words, the other information you removed appears to be correct, even if the reference is weak. I don't think it is proper to remove information and a reference without providing a better reference to replace it. If you want to remove the word count, please simply provide a new estimate and a reference to back it up. As for the other info, feel free to rewrite that section as you please as long as you provide a new reference to back things up. But simply removing a citation and info, then placing a "citation needed" tag on that section, is not how I prefer to edit. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You should read up on Wikipedia citations here, where it states that if a citation's link goes dead, all you do is deactivate the link because "Even with an inactive link, the citation still records a source that was used, and provides a context for understanding archiving delays or for taking other actions." A citation with a dead link is still a valid citation. Anyway, since you're not interested in editing the article, I'll dig up the correct info on the number of new words Shakespeare created and provide a new link for that. But I'm going to leave the reference for the other info b/c it appears to be correct and, as I said, a weak reference is better than no reference. When either myself or another editor finds a stronger reference, we'll replace it.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)