User talk:Wavelength: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:31, 24 October 2009

/What links here (29 September 2008) (165 pages) – /Archive 1 (99 kilobytes) (64 sections) (created 29 September 2008)
/What links here (9 September 2009) (632 pages) – /Archive 2 (124 kilobytes) (64 sections) (created 9 September 2009)

Please use my exact username or no name at all when communicating to me or about me on Wikipedia pages. It has only ten characters and is seldom needed for clarity.
Please consider yourself welcome to refer to me by using one or more epicene pronouns.
- For example: I know tem. Tey said it temself. This is ter idea. This is ters.
If I left a message on an article talk page or on your user talk page and you wish to leave a message in response, please respond where I left the message. I intend to keep all such pages on my watchlist for at least two weeks after my last message.
If you are starting a discussion, please give some thought to choosing a meaningful heading, unique on the page, for easy navigation.

Thank you! Copy-editing the Beginners' guide to the Manual of Style

Hi Wavelength: Thanks hugely for copy-editing the concise version of the MoS main page; you have most certainly improved it!

I hope you don't mind my removing "that" in two places, under "Images": "Most pictures should be displayed so they are between 100 and 400 pixels wide. The maximum should generally not exceed 500 pixels in height or 400 pixels in width, so the image can be comfortably displayed within the text on the smallest displays in common use."

I used to include "that" in such cases, until User:Hoary removed it from one of my pages and I realised it's usually unnecessary (and clogs a little). Tony (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. I might check it again in the future.

I do not mind your removal of "that" in two places. For precision in such instances, I prefer to restrict "so" to clauses indicating result, and "so that" to clauses indicating purpose. However, I am aware of people using "so" for purpose and "so that" for result. (For those who say, "Such precision is unnecessary if the meaning is evident from the context", I say, "It is evident this time, but it might not be evident the next time, so there is less ambiguity if we practice precision every time.")

I gave a heading to this discussion, after some pondering. In this instance, I found it challenging to choose one that would be brief (without abbreviations) and precise, so I decided in favor of a little more precision and a little less brevity than what I might usually choose.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few MoS regulars have complained that some of the wordings are too "terse". They may be right in a few cases, but I'm unconvinced that readers can't easily adapt to the brevity. Wordiness is what puts a lot of people off the MoS. A related misgiving is the use of point-initial bolded themes. Your thoughts on both? Tony (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you did give a heading to this discussion, but that you misplaced it, above the introductory information. Therefore, I am combining your heading ("Thank you!") with the one which I composed, and which I discussed above at 16:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC). On the matter of terseness versus wordiness, I need to consider specific instances separately. If, by "point-initial bolded themes", you mean boldface text such as "Seasons" under WP:MOS#Calendar items, then of course they are an aid to navigation, and I am surprised that someone would find such a thing to be objectionable. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noetica

I'm afraid he walked out a few weeks ago, blaming me. I'm unsure what the issue is, since he refuses to communicate. Possessives at MoS? Tony (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this information, even though it is very negative. By saying that "he walked out", do you mean that he left Wikipedia in a more definitive way than previously? (See User talk:Noetica#A wikibreak.) For identifying what the issue is, there might be a clue in his latest edit, at 12:06, 22 August 2009. You probably understand his personality much better than I do. Does he refuse to communicate even by e-mail? Is it possible that what seems to be refusal is actually an inability caused by extenuating circumstances?

Because of the very important influence that both of you have had in developing the Manual of Style, and because of the importance of the Manual of Style in guiding the editing of Wikipedia articles, and because of the very great influence of Wikipedia on the Internet, it is critical that both of you be very careful of your relationship with each other. I am reminded of the keystone influence of parents in a family, and of how an upheaval in their relationship can have devastating repercussions for their children. Likewise, disagreements in a business partnership can cause serious problems to its employees.

If Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee is analogous to a court, does Wikipedia have anything analogous to relationship counseling? We have Category:Wikipedia user conduct and Category:Wikipedia conduct policy, but is there anything to provide real-time guidance for specific relationships, with analogous privacy?

Noetica has definitely been a very valuable asset to Wikipedia, and his absence is a severe loss. He has weathered the unappreciative treatment dealt to him by a number of less qualified editors, but I might have thought that you would be his most loyal supporter, and maybe you are. For my part, I believe that the Manual of Style (including all its subpages) would fare much better if he made all the final decisions about it unilaterally. I have seen his extraordinary skill in trying to overcome the impasse concerning possessives, and the inadequate response to his four-part questionnaire. (See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 108#Recent changes to the "Possessives" section.) By necessity, it involves deep thinking, which might have been too much for some editors. I myself did not complete the questionnaire, but I stated my reason. (See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 108#Let's start anew and solve this? on the same page.) If editors are unable to give adequate counterarguments to his proposals, then at least they can get out of the way and let real progress take place. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably to do with that reversion and a difficult exchange beforehand about the wording that was about to be posted.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding discussion followed my contribution to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style at 15:22, 22 September 2009, in a discussion now archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 110#Silently correct typos in quotes?, and specifically under the following subheading: "[Sic]" considered harmful. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Noetica first appeared on the Ref Desks, we struck up a good rapport, and because we lived not too far from each other at the time, I suggested we meet up. He was open to the idea, and my partner and I spent a lovely few hours at his home, around Easter 2008. (This, by the way, was only the second one-to-one meeting I’ve ever proposed in my almost 6 years here, and the only one that actually occurred). He’s a fascinating fellow – not that I was at all surprised about that. I remember him recommending Tony as an excellent and erudite editor for whom he had great respect. So, I’m saddened they’ve had some sort of parting of the ways. I hope it doesn’t spell the end of Noetica’s relationship with WP entirely; we can ill afford to lose such a resource. We said we’d keep in touch, but that hasn’t happened much. I did call him when he mysteriously vanished the first time (this would have been about a year ago now), just to make sure he was ok. He was fine; just busy with real life events, and WP was assuming a rather low priority. I can only assume that’s the reason again. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article on collaborative vs group performance

Thanks; it's a good piece. It suggests that the lack of real collaboration among WP editors (rather, it's normally a group effort) is good for outcomes. This is reinforced by the fact that most editing is based on secondary sources rather than difficult original research. Perhaps it explains why the style and policy pages are so fraught with tension. Tony (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your message is in response to my message on your talk page. Discussions are easier to follow if they are not divided on separate talk pages. That is why, in the rectangle at the top of this page, I requested that any editor wishing to respond to a message by me on that editor's talk page do so on the same page.

In the four-page article "Are two heads better than one?", at http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_15-editionID_89-ArticleID_491-getfile_getPDF/thepsychologist/dec02thompson.pdf, the most salient information for me is found on the second page (page 617). Under the heading "So do too many cooks always spoil the broth?", and more specifically under the subheading "Friend or stranger?", the author suggests that collaboration is beneficial to memory when friends are involved, because of the degree to which they understand and trust the working of each other's memory. She suggests that strangers are more prone to misunderstand each other, and more prone to mistrust (or to misplace trust in) each other–thus, collaboration hinders memory performance. I made the extrapolation that those effects might apply to collaborative activities more generally, not only to remembering, but also to decision-making and to other mental activities.

Maybe Wikipedia would function better (though still not perfectly) if its editors were organized according to mutually shared ways of thinking.

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia River

Thanks for your excellent -- and clearly explained -- edits to the newly-FA'ified Columbia River. Much appreciated! -Pete (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of List of class action lawsuits

I have nominated List of class action lawsuits, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of class action lawsuits. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THF (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification. I am removing the duplicate notification. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of List of gender equality lawsuits

I have nominated List of gender equality lawsuits, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gender equality lawsuits. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THF (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions I've asked on the Reference Desks

Wow! Such a service deserves acknowledgment, and thanks. We are indeed on the same "wavelength", because more than once I've thought of creating exactly this list, but never got around to it. There are probably just as many again on Miscellaneous, Humanities and Entertainment. I've also asked a few questions at Science and Mathematics. Thanks again. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your message is in response to my message at 03:16, 24 October 2009 on your talk page. If you do put those 77 links on a new subpage, please provide me with a link to that subpage. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 ::Probably to do with that reversion and a difficult exchange beforehand about the wording that was about to be posted.  <br> <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Tony1|Tony1]] ([[User talk:Tony1|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tony1|contribs]]) 13:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
 :::The preceding discussion followed my contribution to [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style]] at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&action=historysubmit&diff=315521745&oldid=315519290 15:22, 22 September 2009], in a discussion now archived at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 110#Silently correct typos in quotes?]], and specifically under the following subheading: "[Sic]" considered harmful. -- [[User:Wavelength|Wavelength]] ([[User talk:Wavelength#top|talk]]) 18:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
+When Noetica first appeared on the Ref Desks, we struck up a good rapport, and because we lived not too far from each other at the time, I suggested we meet up.  He was open to the idea, and my partner and I spent a lovely few hours at his home, around Easter 2008. (This, by the way, was only the second one-to-one meeting I’ve ever proposed in my almost 6 years here, and the only one that actually occurred).  He’s a fascinating fellow – not that I was at all surprised about that.  I remember him recommending Tony as an excellent and erudite editor for whom he had great respect.  So, I’m saddened they’ve had some sort of parting of the ways.  I hope it doesn’t spell the end of Noetica’s relationship with WP entirely; we can ill afford to lose such a resource.  We said we’d keep in touch, but that hasn’t happened much.  I did call him when he mysteriously vanished the first time (this would have been about a year ago now), just to make sure he was ok.  He was fine; just busy with real life events, and WP was assuming a rather low priority.  I can only assume that’s the reason again.  --  [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 20:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 ==Article on collaborative vs group performance==