User talk:Nortonius

Welcome!

Hello, Nortonius! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ling.Nut (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Thank you! My latest (and only about my third or fourth) round of major editing, to King William II of England's page, has already proven contentious, so I may well need that help...! Nortonius (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Bouncing bomb

Patience, my friend - I'm writing it already:-) PeterWD (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha, good for you! It's just that I saw you hadn't been active yet today, you cover a lot of articles, and I was about to go off and do other things, sooo! Cheers. p.s. While I'm at it I also meant to point out that there's an inconsistency now in citation styles: I don't mind if you want to change them all one way or the other, but they've been "Author, A.N., Title, p. x.", and you've added "Author (year), p. x." Up to you. Nortonius (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Long time no lobster

Heya, it's been a while. I hope you are well? And so forth and so on.  Chzz  ►  11:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ohai! Really nice to hear from you. Yes, very few lobsters about, maybe Jayne Mansfield's got them all. Been keeping my head down more than usual of late - can't summon the energy to do much, apart from hunting bears and racking my bounty up in Red Dead Redemption... I'd had it in mind to ask for a reminder of your suggestions of how to turn this into a viable article, remembering that I was going to keep only people, and ditch places and all the other stuff, I do think the number & sheer variety of people name-checked by D&C is a remarkable thing in itself, and my list isn't quite finished yet; and re Reculver, you suggested a way of re-jigging the refs? But I can't remember how... Frontal lobe disturbance, I think they call it! And, cba... But maybe I'll get around to fiddling with those things one day, if you can ba to bung something about it here? Actually I'd been thinking, I hope Chzz didn't get the wrong idea when I said "them new-fangled ways can fook off", or some such - as in, I very much appreciate knowing you bud, I'm just feeling a bit meh about WP these days... As a friend said to me t'other day, "You've done enough." Feels a bit like that, though obv others have done more and are still doing it. Hope things are ok your end, though! Cheers again boyo. Nortonius (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Re. yr Sandbox - well, being blunt: a) it be a useful list (as is) on some other wiki, but b) for enwiki you'd need actual refs to e.g. books about D&C, or somesuch, because otherwise it'd always have huge problems as 'original research'.

Reculver - I honestly can't remember what I said (memory like a wossname), but probably/maybe I was suggesting 'Harvard-style references" - for the books. That is, where the little number after the fact links to a short ref e.g. "Smith 2008, p. 1" and that links to the full details of the book in a 'Bibliography'. An example is Marco Polo. I wrote a 'how to' on it, in User:Chzz/help/harvard - and I'd be quite happy to do it for you, too, if you thought it'd be worthwhile. Or I could 'demo' it or something, and we could see if it was useful. Let me know.

And no, I didn't get the wrong idea - I perfectly understand. We do what we do. For me, for now, it feels 'right' to be as involved as I am - if/when that changes, I'll wander off too. But yes - things have been going well; it's quite a long time since anything truly annoyed me on-wiki, and I've thoroughly enjoyed myself in helping and getting to know quite a lot of great new-ish users recently. For example, ThatPeskyCommoner (talk · contribs) had dabbled with Wikipedia briefly years ago, and came back to it in Feb, and I was able to help her a bit in creating History of the horse in Britain, and now I'm advising her on her first review of GA candidate. Best of all is, Pesky has helped out another new user, Lisaseventyfive (talk · contribs), and she has helped out another new user...and so forth. It's great when that works. In addition, I'm enjoying myself as an Ambassador helping some students write articles as part of their college course. Elsewhere, inevitably there are 'arguments' - e.g. the PC debate still rages (day 314 of our 2-month trial started last June), RfA is a broken process, and all those sorts of things - but SNAFU; Wikipedia is still an amazing thing. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  21:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chzz, thanks for all the above, and soz to be so slow in responding - on top of chronic and increasing slackness, I had a birthday and other associated traumas to negotiate!

Re D&C, OR hadn't occurred to me! Thought I was simply citing published sources, i.e. RS... I don't suppose moving the track listings into inline citations would help?! Don't worry, I have faith in your judgement - as far as I can see, no-one's published the scripts in a RS format, so maybe that's that then! (That is, there's this, as we know, but it's self-published, probably copyright infringement etc., hardly RS.) Though, if that's the case, it seems a fine idea to leave that embryonic article lurking as it is, until such time...!

Re Reculver, yes that's exactly what you suggested, now that I see it again, Marco Polo 'n' all - sorry if I'm blowing hot and cold on this but can't really see myself doing anything about it now, so not about to ask you to grind your way through it for me, kind offer though it is. Point is though, if I do get the urge, I won't have to bother you about it again, I can probably work it out for myself now thanks to you! I think you suggested it in response to something I said, about someone else saying it was about time the Reculver article was reviewed for GA - looks like a good idea, but, the moment seems to have gone for me.

Glad I was just being paranoid in wondering if I'd given the wrong impression before - yep, despite all the broken/wearisome stuff in WP there's loads of good stuff too, including you, really pleased to hear you're enjoying yourself! TTFN. Nortonius (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Speed of replies is of no concern whatsoever; I'm a firm believer in no deadlines.

D&C's recording is a reliable source, however, it is also a primary source - and that is the concern. It is perfectly acceptable to say "D said THIS <ref>Album name, track number time</ref>. But, if other people have not analysed the material - and written about these things - then it does indeed become OR.

Consider, for example, that I could create an article stating how many times D&C use the letter 'q' in their works. That would be exactly the same situation. I could reference the moment of each use of that letter, and it'd be reliably sourced - so why couldn't we have such an article? Because, unless some book, newspaper or what-not had written about "Use of the letter Q in the works of D&C', then it'd be original research, and that inappropriate for our Encyclopaedia.

We probably could (for example) write of the frequency of the letters in some forms of bible, because other people have analysed it, so it would not be OR. (I suspect that it would, however, be as boring as fuck)

Reculver - honestly, it would be no bother at all, if you wanted me to do it; it would be a pleasurable little task I could attend to at my leisure, as a break from other more demanding areas of this project; I actually enjoy having gnomish jobs like that, and the only reason I have not just dived in and done it already is, because MOS tells me to tread lightly, and seek consensus first, before converting citation styles. In the case of that article, I believe 'consensus' of the majority editors is, pretty much, you - and if you prefer to leave it, one day, to have at it yourself - that's absolutely fine by me too.

While I am here, I have something else to ask of you; if, one day, you might glance over History of the horse in Britain - which is in pretty good shape, but the author (who I have mentored somewhat) is keen to improve it further, and I wondered if you might possibly be able to provide some input. Forgive me if it is out of your field, but I see no harm in asking. Note, also, that this is a long-term thingy, so there is absolutely no hurry whatsoever.

Boomshanka. Or not, as you may prefer. and yes, I really am sad enough to have just spent 15 minutes creating that wiktionary entry, just so I could say it here. I just hope it is not deleted by the time you read this  Chzz  ►  01:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha, boomshanka to you too! Re D&C 'n' OR, yep no that's fine, it simply hadn't occurred to me to think of it like that - s'pose I was having too much fun, and thinking of the quotes rather than in terms of "analysis"! Anyway, "fun" was always the key to that pet project, so never mind eh?! I'll leave it as it is, though I'll probably fix the wikilink on my user page to make it slightly more visible, after all there may be a way to do it one day! Thinking of it in terms of analysis though, I can't imagine anyone ever publishing a suitable source - what form would it take?! Published scripts alone wouldn't be any good it seems (But why haven't they been published? Beats me!), and anything really suitable might make it difficult to avoid copyvio... Anyway, feel free to fix and add things to it yourself if you ever get sufficiently bored...!

Talking of which, Reculver: well, since you put it like that, be my guest! Tinker away! Or, copy & paste a bit into your user space and do a tiny bit on that, so I can see what it'd look like? Up to you. Anyway, I don't suppose anyone else will mind... About horses, as of now I haven't looked at it, but I will some time soonish - or Ealdgyth's a horse specialist, you might ask her, though she's usually very busy. Our paths haven't really crossed for some time now, but we share an interest in some Anglo-Saxon historical stuff... On the other hand, not knowing anything about a subject is sometimes helpful in this game, so no indeed, no harm in asking! Big cheers. Nortonius (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Recluver, yes, I'll tinker, some time. D&C analysis, apart from possible-wiki-article (which might indeed need trimming), there's always other places for it - I'm thinking of Wikiquote, TV Tropes, or even make a D&C wiki on Wikia, come to that. Ealdgyth, great suggestion, which I've passed along to Pesky. Re. not knowing being beneficial sometimes - yes, absolutely...or, more specifically, a combo of people from varied backgrounds, some with expertise in the subject (or parts thereof), some good at copyediting of technical bits of wiki, etc. is ideal.  Chzz  ►  04:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Recluver

Well, I've tried a bit - see [1].

To move to clearer citations, it's necessary to change from saying e.g. "See THIS and THAT, because of such-and such, and then again there is THE OTHER" and just, instead, say, "Ref THIS, ref THAT, note THE OTHER".

If you see what I mean.  Chzz  ►  04:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm yes I see what you mean - trouble is, to me explanatory footnotes thus "See THIS and THAT, because of such-and such, and then again there is THE OTHER" are much more helpful than just "Ref THIS, ref THAT, note THE OTHER". While the first gives you an idea straight away of whether you'd be interested in following up the refs, the 2nd tells you 0! Except where you can find more info, if you can be arsed...! I find it v frustrating when I'm researching something myself. Also, glancing through Reculver the other day, I think one or two bits of formatting need fiddling with too, as something looked to have become a bit garbled. Really hope all is well with you old bean. Nortonius (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Differential analyser and Ernesto Pascal

Hello, i would try to explain the aim of my edit of Differential analyser page. First of all, in Italian "integrafi" means exactly integraph. For that i can understand reading quoted text, Pascal's contribution was a sponsorship for the use of integraphs in solving differential equations, a theoretical study of this approaching method and the design of modified devices suitable for this use, "i miei integrafi" (my integraphs). These instruments was produced just as prototypes. For what i know, University of Napoli had one integraph and few parts. The integraph was stolen few years ago :-( May be, universities of Pavia and Milano have two Pascal's integraphs in their caves. I'm searching them, let see. If you can read French, cap. 11 of this text is a good reference for Pascal integraphs http://www.reunion.iufm.fr/dep/mathematiques/calculsavant/Equipe/Resources/tournes_riccati_part3.pdf

bye --Ancelli (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That's ok, you go ahead - no offence, but I was only interested in improving the English in the article, and I did not intend to change its meaning. I hope that is ok with you. Nortonius (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Reculver

One quick comment, for now: it focuses too much on history (not surprising!) - thus it isn't "broad in scope", which is a GA requirement. For example - the "Geography" section is all historic; it doesn't mention where it actually is. The lede says "situated about 3 miles (5 km) east of Herne Bay" but there's no elaboration of that in the body. Other things are - climate; demographics; politics. What's the last census data day? What's the weather like? Who is the MP? What schools are there? Where's the nearest hospital? Transportation links - which roads? Train line? Anything in the news about it ([2]) (not necessarily now, and not trivial news, of course. Just, looking for info apart from the 'history' side). Any sports teams, or other clubs? "Famous" residents? I hope you get my point; I'm not suggesting trivia - and I know the history side is your interest; if it was "the history of Recluver" it would be OK, but to be an article about the place, I think you need to expand the non-historic parts, if that's at all possible. I do realise it's a tiny place, and is kinda 'mostly known' for the historic background; but I imagine even in a place that small, there's more that can be said about the current/more recent history.

It's just a quick suggestion; something you might be able to ponder. If it's going to become a great article, we need to think: "what encyclopaedic information can we say about this place?" - any and all encyclopaedic information.  Chzz  ►  00:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I was looking at it today and thinking, in a fuzzy sort of way, that the historical bit loomed a bit large, compared to the rest of it! Thanks for the specific ideas! I'm all done in from retrieving lobsters today, so I'll start working through your excellent points probably tomorrow! Cheers for that! Nortonius (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... Any quick way I can find a GA on an English village, preferably in Kent? Is there some way to mash up Category:Good articles and e.g. Category:Villages in Kent? No? Ok, it was just a thought... Nortonius (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

There's Birchington-on-Sea - an FA. You could check for others in WP:FA#Geography and places and Wikipedia:Good_articles/Geography_and_places#Europe.  Chzz  ►  12:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

(There actually is a way to "mash up" two cats, called WP:CATSCAN - but it's more hassle than it's worth, in this specific case, compared to just looking at the list; there's not that many Euro-place-GA's)  Chzz  ►  12:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yay! Thank you! Yes, "just looking at the list"... I do feel dim, sometimes - I'll resist the temptation to blame it on having a cold, and a cat of my own jumping on and off my lap like a yo-yo this morning... <joking>I'll mash him up if he's not careful!</joking> Nortonius (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't read too much into Birch-o-S being FA. It's not all that amazing. It became an FA in 2007; these days, it doesn't look like FA quality. I actually suggest looking at other more recent FA places - even if they're not so similar. Chew Stoke, Herne Bay, Kent and Westgate-on-Sea are also FA, but also 2007 vintage. Weymouth, Dorset isn't so bad. Mendip Hills is probably better, because it was reviewed (as FA) last year.  Chzz  ►  13:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I immediately noticed an inconsistent spelling "archeologist" vs. "archaeological", and "five of the fifty six seats", at the B-o-S article... Not great, exactly, though obv not a "P-o-S" (lol?) either - but, another example of dimness, I actually knew but had forgotten that Herne Bay was FA! Duh... Thanks for the further tips, may your lobster-retrieving be ever easy. Nortonius (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Reculver at GA?

Hello Nortonius. I heard on the grape-vine that Reculver may be close to GA. I would like to offer myself as your GA reviewer. It would be my first GA review though I have recruited a mentor to keep me alert. Should you be interested, please let me know before you submit it so I can keep my eye open for it --Senra (Talk) 23:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Hello Senra, yes, that sounds like a good plan, thanks! It might be helpful for both of us: though I have my misgivings about getting too involved in WP these days, I'd be really pleased to see Reculver at GA after all this time, and who knows how I might feel further down the road? I'd appreciate knowing that there's someone waiting to dive in, and, we'll both be learning. That's got to be good! Ok, MF's just given me his biggest GA tip, which is to "nominate this at GAN now" - actually I'm ready to sign off for tonight, so I'll do it some time tomorrow probably, and message you just before I do. Cheers, and good night! Nortonius (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)