User talk:Laser brain

Giraffe

I did some clean up for the giraffe article. Can you please spotcheck it? It particulary need help paraphasing the last cite for [12]. LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Will do. I'd like to get the GAR for Tammar wallaby closed as well. I don't think there will be any call for removing GA status. --Laser brain (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

So are you gonna get to it soon? LittleJerry (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, probably not. I've been dealing with a rather large problem with sourcing by an established editor that is taking up all of my wiki time. Please do not rush these to FAC. It's much better to take lots of time and do the job right. There is nothing to be gained from rushing things to FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Elk

Please consider that people thinking about Alces alces may simply write in other Wikipedia articles "elk" in double square brackets if they are unaware of the ambiguity. If "Elk" was a disambiguation page, the people would be warned by a bot that they must be more specific. Many people do not know that European elk and North American elk are very different and do not even belong to the same genus. As a biologist and science translator for 20 years, I've heard about the North American usage of this word only recently. That is why I'm so persistent - to avoid confusion in Wikipedia and elsewhere, rather than to prove that I'm right for the sake of my ego. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you are arguing. What we are trying to tell you is that is not how pages are disambiguated here. If there is one clearly preferable target for a page, that is where the page goes. Since the elk is North American, and it is called an "elk" in North America, that is where it goes. Anyone else who winds up there accidentally is served by notice at the top of the page. There is no sense in adding an extra page and extra click for readers who wanted elk and arrived at the correct place. Usability 101. Consider rabbit. It goes to the animal because that is what most readers would be looking for when they type in rabbit. If I typed in "rabbit" but was looking for Rabbit (Winnie-the-Pooh), I have to do a bit more work. There would be no sense in making "rabbit" go to a disambiguation page just because there are other things someone might have meant. Now if I am writing an article and I insert a wikilink to elk or rabbit, it is my responsibility as an editor to check the link and make sure it going to the target I intended. --Laser brain (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Why have your reverted my last edits? They improve the quality of the article. Have you ever read them and my latest explanations in the discussion? Pleas prove what was wrong about my edits and why you suggest that they degrade its quality. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't deleted the reliable source but moved it higher!!! Please see the source - it doesn't mention the names listed at the end of the sentence. I've explained it in the edit summary. You shouldn't revert edits if you haven't read them carefully. My edits are not disruptive, but improve the quality of the article. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The Satanic Bible expansion

Hello! First of all, thanks for your constructive FA review of The Satanic Bible. I have worked to add a Themes section, and was hoping you would give me some feedback on it—do you think it is complete, or do you see any issues with it? You also suggested a section on the cultural and religious impact of the book. I was hoping you could give me a little more advice regarding this. I feel like cultural impact is somewhat worked in to the Reception section, where I discuss the Satanic Panic and the criticism the book has received. Do you feel there is more that needs to be said on this? As for the religious impact, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.

Thanks for your advice! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I will look soon. I think what I meant by "religious impact" is how the book has affected the spread of Satanism. I saw some journal articles about how Satanism has seen some degree of increase that's directly attributable to the book. Do you have access to library databases? If not, I could try to pull some of these and email them to you as PDFs. --Laser brain (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I have access to quite a few databases through my university. Many of the sources I've already used were from JSTOR, etc. Thanks for your help! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic precedent

Long term disruptive user is being called to task for something. He makes an 11th hour plea and basically agrees to what the people asking for his ban want, but instead of letting the community consensus form, he does it himself, negating that discussion. Those opposing mentioned the community could have kept the discussion going to make it formal, but I can guarantee that anyone who tried to do that would have been told to "drop the stick" since bugs had already agreed to what the community wanted. he then goes back on his word, the condition for which the previous discussion was stopped in its tracks, a clear majority want him banned, and you've just let him walk away. With zero recourse and zero evidence the disruptive behaviour won't continue, since he hit the trifecta there, starting a conversation on AN/I against his ban, the nature of the discussion he started, and the drama close in the middle of it. From WP:CONSENSUS This means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms. a very clear majority in both discussion had legitimate concerns regarding his editing, and I can't see how your close remotely addresses any of those concerns. you've given him carte blanche to return as he was. As Kim pointed out, we've now just said as a community any time you're being called to task, just volunteer for a bunch of restrictions, then go back on your word later, don't worry, we'll just take it.--Crossmr (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, my close neither defends nor legitimizes BB's behavior on AN/I. I closed it as I did because the thread lacked clarity in what was being requested, and those opposing brought up legitimate concerns about the way this was being done. If the community wants BB banned from that board, wouldn't you rather see it done correctly? You know what happens when things are done in a slipshod manner—later on, people poke holes in the outcome and it loses its effectiveness. We constantly have requests for clarification even for relatively well-written arb cases. It may be a moot point anyway: [1]. --Laser brain (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Your close imposed no restriction on him, no warning, nothing. As such he was free to carry on as he had before. You didn't explicitly endorse it, but you also didn't do anything to curb it either. The thread was very clear Propose an extension of the topic ban for a further month from today of which the original close said Bugs has voluntarily agreed to avoid the drama boards for one month unless he is called here for issues that directly involve is own behavior. How is that not clear? That seems to be a very specific request based on very specific criteria. The only thing not clear were his supporters trying to use his volunteering for the restriction as some kind of double jeopardy rule, which really wasn't addressing the issue at all. As for his claim, well he claimed he'd stay away from AN/I for a month as well.--Crossmr (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the opposing comments were pretty clear in pointing out that the thread was requesting an extension to something that didn't exist. I realize that he agreed to take a break in the face of the threat of sanctions, and that some of you consider that a de facto sanction. There were then refrains of "Well, then can the proposal be about this instead?" It makes for a muddy proposal that, if enacted, has holes the size of a Mack truck. It would be easy for him to circumvent the sanction by claiming that the process was improper. My main point continues to be that this needs to be done right, if it's going to be done. I don't like jumping through hoops any more than the next guy, but we need to be fair. --Laser brain (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Defeated Sanity

Thank you very much! If the IP returns and continue their edit, do you have any suggestions on what I should do next? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Poppy Meadow FA.

Hi! I have done all your points at the FA Review, and I do admit they were very good points! Thank you very much for taking part in both FA reviews, you can probably see how much the article has progressed! However, after doing all your points I hope I have changed your Oppose in to a Support! Once again, Thanks. MayhemMario 16:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi again! Thanks for the FA comments, do I have to waitn untill a independent editor comes forward and wants to do it? What is the process? Can you put a talkback template on my talk when you reply, thanks! MayhemMario 16:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you will need to find someone to do it. It's a lot of work, so your chances of someone casually happening by and doing it are pretty low. Thanks for sticking with it! --Laser brain (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Categories

From Category:Operas: "It has been agreed after discussion in the Wikipedia Opera Project that all opera title articles will be included in this main category to enable searching by users." Whether or no I agree with it, I make an effort to follow it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Spotcheck on Missouri River

Hello there, I have responded to your comments on this FAC. I hope you're going to continue the spotchecking, because it would be a shame to see the FAC fail at this late stage... Shann_ºn 01:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Your turn

sigh Toddst1 (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Wehwalt

• Diff of User:Wehwalt

I don't think it a mistake; please put it back and see the edit protected request on his talk (by me). Alarbus (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It's very strange. It's unlike Wehwalt to make an edit like that and leave it broken. --Laser brain (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR. Please fix the table. Alarbus (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever happened there went completely over my head. I've emailed him about it. Hope things work out. --Laser brain (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Mulholland drive plot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mulholland_Drive_%28film%29 take a look here for discussion thanks. --JTBX (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I need your help, again!

Hi, Remember me? that "Soar eagle" article? I've something new on my hands.

I know this may not be a subject of your liking. But I presume that you may have some technical help for me.

I added some controversial information regarding "Human's similarity to herbivores". apparently, all my sources (mostly MDs and PhDs) amounted to a "vegan propaganda". I am not a Vegan. I'm really in support of truth. But simply claiming that my whole contribution is a "propaganda" is not likely an adequate reason for removal of the whole section.

My question is a fairly simple one, Is calling/labelling my edits as "propaganda" a sufficient ground for undoing all my changes(~16,503 bytes)? Visit this history page and the talk page. Please do something soon. They repeatedly deleting my additions. without discussing it with me or providing any reliable source that claims anything contradictory regarding human anatomy. --DrYouMe ^(Talk?) 11:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that calling your edits "propaganda" is not a great way to encourage new editor participation. They are probably very sensitive to such information being added to the article—I say this to explain their actions, not to condone them. The page Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is not easy to absorb all at once, but I can tell you that the editors at herbivore are actually removing your content because it adds undue weight to the views presented, and because the sources are not high-quality. I see you were given similar advise by Pesky at WP:AN/I. I think you will need to find a high-quality source such as a peer-reviewed academic journal that supports these claims, and then try gaining consensus for adding a smaller section representing these views. Hope this helps. --Laser brain (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This helps. I understood your point. Thank you. I refrained from stretching the argument further there on the talk page of the article. Thanks once again for your time. --DrYouMe ^(Talk?) 00:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

A different strategy

Could I just show you a few lines and their sources and you can comment on whether the pharasing is good enough? LittleJerry (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. --Laser brain (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I posted them here. LittleJerry (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

These are OK, and I think within most people's acceptable parameters. You are improving—I think if you want to improve further, you should try reading a source, and then paraphrasing it a couple hours later without looking. This technique will give you even more distance from the text, and will also prove that you absorbed the material. --Laser brain (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

FAC for A Free Ride

Hello, I came here after an advice in my talk page that you could help in determining FAC. If you have time, would you be interested in reviewing this article to determine whether all the sources available on this topic have examined. Thank you! --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 03:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. It might take me a day or two to get to it. If I'm understanding correctly, are you interested in discovering if there are any sources you haven't used? --Laser brain (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 04:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)