User talk:Glane23

Geoff Lane

---

If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please click here and let me know. I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret a reversion or warning on my part as a personal attack on you; it's not. Please bring any error to my attention as I am always open to civil discussion. (I will respond here on my talk page unless you request otherwise.) No worries, mate. Geoff

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Orphaned non-free image File:Optic Pearl.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Optic Pearl.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, bot. The article link to the image has been restored and the orphan tag removed. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

recent changes to phytic acid

hi, i am not sure why you changed the info i added to the page. please elaborate a bit more so i can understand; i thought it was very useful and relevant info and i quoted directly from a peer reviewed journal that i referenced. this page is missing a fundamental aspect of phytic acid that lets the students know that is is mostly found as phytate and that it is not in most vegetable products that are commonly consumed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.172.106.200 (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

What I saw as a result of your edits didn't seem to make sense, as one sentence ended up reading: "No detectable phytate was observed in leafy green vegetables, such as scallion and cabbage leaves, apples, oranges, bananas, or pears, which again means that the level was less than 0.02 % of wet weight." The sentence seems to include apples, oranges, bananas and pears in the class of "leafy green vegetables", as well as cabbage, not usually included as such a vegetable. Do feel free to revisit and continue working on the article. Just read over it again when you edit to see if the entire sense is clear in context. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

yes, the grammar was incorrect as i pasted in two sentences from the article and did not alter the sentence structure appropriately. but the part i do not understand is why one would delete the entire entry instead of just fixing the evident grammar mistake? please tell me/reply. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.172.106.200 (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Because the view that I had at the time highlighted only the grammar errors. It's an easy fix and I have done so for you. To restore a prior version, just go to the History tab and click on compare between two versions. Then restore the prior version. Since it's done, you can go ahead and revisit to correct the grammar. Cheers! Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Data Windows

I am concerned that a reference on Data Windows I had inserted has been reverted. The Reference publication which appeared in 1972 predates all presented on the Wikipedia page. The paper has historical value and had published most results that were subsequently published and quoted on the page (published in 1978). The paper I had inserted was published in the UK. I hope it is not Wikipedia policy to only refer to papers published in the US only.Tariq Durrani (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Durrani T S and Nightingale J M (1972). "Data windows for Digital Spectral Analysis". Proc IEE (GB). 8: 342–352.

Please advise.

It looks like you added it back here, though in an odd manner, then moved it, removed it and moved it again, until another editor removed it. The problem I had is the same as that expressed on your Talk page by Ariadacapo: adding your own works to articles appears to be self-promotion and possibly a conflict of interest. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Thanks for your comments. My concerns still hold. My aim in inserting the reference was to set the record straight by pointing out that the work I was quoting predates by several years the results quoted on the wikipedia page. This is not self promotion, rather this is aimed at ensuring the validity of the work quoted on the wikipedia page, and giving the correct historical perspective.

Please advise. I have no interest in self-publicity. After all the work I am quoting appeared over forty years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tariq Durrani (talk • contribs) 14:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Nevertheless, adding one's own works as references to a number of otherwise adequately referenced articles appears to be self-promotion. It isn't necessary to add every reference to the subject. See, for example, citation overkill. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Does this imply that a Wikipedia author can write about a subject, refer only to his/her own published work, this claiming ownership of the topic, without giving due recognition to earlier papers published on the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tariq Durrani (talk • contribs) 15:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

In the specific cases of the articles to which you added your own works, it appeared that the citations were not necessary as the articles were all adequately referenced. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a professional journal, exhaustive references to the entire body of prior literature is neither necessary nor helpful. And in the specific articles, your postings seemed to amount to self-promotion for those reasons. Nevertheless, referencing ones own work is not completely prohibited. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Citing_yourself. A best practice, as noted by that article's section, would be to post on the article's Talk page to seek community consensus as to the proposed addition of citations to your works. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

You are a cuckold jew

You are a cuckold jew — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAumUpadhyay (talk • contribs) 18:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)