:::That's something that we should mention by itself, such as has been done in the ''[[Eunectes murinus]]'' article, but I'm against using that as a green light to then go ahead and include in the text every report like this that appears in the media. Rather, our approach should simply be to mention A.) the maximum length we believe to be accurate, B.) that the lengths of large species such as this have been heavily exaggerated for centuries, C.) that it is very difficult to accurately measure the length of a large, live specimen, and D.) that they are a staple of zoo exhibits around the world. Once people understand this, they can make up their own minds about whether or not to believe what they read in the popular press. --[[User:Jwinius|Jwinius]] ([[User talk:Jwinius|talk]]) 21:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
:::That's something that we should mention by itself, such as has been done in the ''[[Eunectes murinus]]'' article, but I'm against using that as a green light to then go ahead and include in the text every report like this that appears in the media. Rather, our approach should simply be to mention A.) the maximum length we believe to be accurate, B.) that the lengths of large species such as this have been heavily exaggerated for centuries, C.) that it is very difficult to accurately measure the length of a large, live specimen, and D.) that they are a staple of zoo exhibits around the world. Once people understand this, they can make up their own minds about whether or not to believe what they read in the popular press. --[[User:Jwinius|Jwinius]] ([[User talk:Jwinius|talk]]) 21:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
*I agree that we should not "go ahead and include in the text every report like this that appears in the media" and haven't given any indication otherwise. Likewise I have not indicated that I favor the inclusion of false information. Who would? I am concerned by your conscious intention to shape people's perceptions by the exclusion of information. [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|Wikipedia is not censored]]. --[[User:Boston|Boston]] ([[User talk:Boston#top|talk]]) 23:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
*I agree that we should not "go ahead and include in the text every report like this that appears in the media" and haven't given any indication otherwise. Likewise I have not indicated that I favor the inclusion of false information. Who would? I am concerned by your conscious intention to shape people's perceptions by the exclusion of information. [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|Wikipedia is not censored]]. --[[User:Boston|Boston]] ([[User talk:Boston#top|talk]]) 23:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
::If we shouldn't just ''"go ahead and include in the text every report like this that appears in the media,"'' then where do we draw the line? Do we make an exception ''just this one time''? If so, what is so special about it? As for false information, it's been explained now that there is good reason to believe that it is not accurate. Censorship?? FYI, this is the normal editorial process at Wikipedia. I happen to believe it's important to keep nonsense and other unless information like this from filling up these articles. In this case I fail to see why many of our visitors from around the world would be impressed to see that we felt it necessary to mention "Fluffy," the allegedly 24-foot specimen in the Columbus Zoo, as reported by the popular press. If you believe otherwise think of a better argument, but don't go making silly accusations. --[[User:Jwinius|Jwinius]] ([[User talk:Jwinius|talk]]) 01:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
New Messages • 新しいメッセージ • Nuevos mensajes • 新消息 • Νέα μηνύματα • Mensagens novas • Nouveaux messages • Новые сообщения • Nieuwe berichten • Nuovi messaggi • 새로운 메시지 • Neue Mitteilungen • Teachtaireachtaí nua • ====
Hi, i also created Henry C. Nevins Home for Aged and Incurables stub article. It is down the street from Nevins Memorial Library. Those are the only two hits on "Nevins" in the NRHP that i can find (besides a "Nevins Bridge" in Indiana that appears to be unrelated). Also, FYI, I checked and find no hits on "Blackburn". I linked to this Home for Aged and Incurables from the library article. Feel free to work in mention of this Home for Aged and Incurables into your Harriet Nevins article, or elsewhere, or not.
I wish the NRHP nomination documents for MA sites were available on-line, as they are for NYS and some other states' sites. NRHP nomination documents often include biographies of significant persons associated with a given site, so i imagine there is useful info in them about the lives of Henry C. Nevins and about Harriet Nevins. You can obtain these documents anyhow, by email request to nr_reference (at) nps.gov, to be sent to you by postal mail, at no charge, although they say it takes about 2 weeks for u to get them. Perhaps you should try putting in requests for the library and the Home, anyhow, to get info that might be added to Harriet Nevins article later? Cheers, doncram (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. I appreciate this information. It's great that you discovered the existance of and created an article about the old age home. I thought about contacting the library but in similar situations I've sometimes encountered people who are either anti-Wiki or who are unaware of it and react with a somewhat flustered "explain to me ten more times what this is for" attitude so it might be more trouble for me than it's worth. I'm eager to incorporate the info about the nursing home into the Nevins' articles. Thanks very much. - Boston (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, without knowing when David died I'm confused about which legacies were a gift from both of them and which were from her as a memorial to him. I am going to try a phonecall to the library and follow up with emails as needed. I sort of forgot libraries have reference librarians whose job it is to dispense info, not to grill the someone as to why the query is being made! - Boston (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevens Family Info
According to a 4 August 2008 communication from Sharon Morley, Reference Librarian at Nevins Memorial Library:
David Nevins Sr. was born in Salem NH on December 12, 1839 To John
and Achsah Swan Nevins. When he reached 21, he moved to New Bedford
and sold supplies to the crews of the whaling vessels. In 1818,
Nevins married Eliza Coffin. She was the daughter wealthy ship
merchant Jared Coffin of Nantucket.
Nevins later went in to business importing cloth. In 1842,
protective taxes began hurting the textile importing business, so
Nevins switched to manufacturing textiles instead. In 1859, he
purchased the ill-fated Pemberton Mill, and in 1864, he purchased
the Methuen Cotton Company on the Spicket River.
Mr. & Mrs. David Nevins Sr. and their two sons returned to the
Methuen area in the early to mid 1860's. David Sr. Died in 1881 at
the age of 72. His wife and sons had the Nevins Memorial Library
built as a memorial to him.
David Nevin's sons, David Jr. and Henry Coffin Nevins took over the
manufacturing businesses when their father Died.
David Jr. born JULY 30, 1839 ran the textile mills which by that
time included India Bagging Company and Bengal Bagging Company in
Salem, MA.
Henry c. born on January 10, 1843 became the agent of the family's
textile brokerage firm called Nevins and Company.
Not only did the company sell the cloth from the Nevins' family
mills, but by this time it was importing textiles from abroad.
David Jr. Died in 1898 and Henry in 1892.
David Nevins Sr. born-Dec.12, 1809-died-March 19, 1881
Eliza Coffin Nevins born June 1, 1817 - died Dec. 30, 1895
David Nevins Jr. Born Jul 30, 1839 - Died Aug 24, 1898
Henry Coffin Nevins Born Jan. 10, 1843-Died June 25, 1892
Within 24 hours I will make sure all the Nevins-related articles we've discussed are in synch with this new information. - Boston (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the pronounciation of Colbert's surname, it says (and is referenced) that:
Colbert sometimes comedically claims his surname is French, but his family is actually of Irish descent. Originally, the name was pronounced [ˈkoʊɫ.bɚt]; Stephen Colbert's father, James, wanted to pronounce the name [koʊɫˈbεɹ], but maintained the [ˈkoʊɫ.bɚt] pronunciation out of respect for his own father (Stephen's grandfather). However, James offered his children the option to pronounce the name whichever way they preferred. Stephen started using [koʊɫˈbεɹ] later in life when he transferred to Northwestern University, taking advantage of the opportunity to reinvent himself in a new place where no one knew him.
I'm therefore guessing that he still pronounces it with the silent "T".
On 8 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article MSPCA-Angell, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 10 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thyrocopa, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 11 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Baudet de Poitou, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 11 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harriet Nevins, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 13 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David Nevins, Jr., which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I've posted a note there you might be interested in. See, if you're planning to do SUL with the Boston account, note that the Russian Wikipedia account has 10 edits, but is blocked indefinitely since 11 June 2008 for personal attacks. The Swedish Wikipedia account may also be a problem, as it has 40 edits. Maxim (☎)14:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please go ahead and add it to DYK if you can think of a suitable hook; I seem to be running into a mental block and can't think of a good one. Thanks, –Black Falcon(Talk)20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) The article currently contains 1523 bytes of "main body prose", so it just barely qualifies as is. I'll try to see whether I can find a few other sources to use to expand the article a little bit more. –Black Falcon(Talk)20:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 13 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Choctaw Hog, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 14 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pink tide, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello. :) I was just admiring your DYKs and noticed a possible error in the one featuring Castletownroche. It seems to indicate that he was apprehended by the "garda"? But which one? Surely he was apprehended by either the gardaí or An Garda Síochána? Perhaps you simply made an error in transferring it but my curiosity got the better of me and I was just wondering if it featured on the Main Page in that form? --Candlewicke (Talk) 03:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 15 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article White Park, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 15 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colleen Cavanaugh, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 15 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pomeranian Goose, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 16 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brookesia minima, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 16 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Silver Marten, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 17 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pemberton Mill, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
No you didn't make an edit conflict. ;) By the way, could you review Joe Connor again? I added an alternate hook, and PeterSymonds (talk·contribs) said it is okay, but he suggested you approve it yourself. Thanks! Now I have to finish with the next update... -- RyRy (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original hooks is actually tighter (I also thought for a moment that only 350 times was sarcasm) but it's no worry either way; choose the one you want . Congrats on the milestone. - Boston (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Also, PeterSymonds asked that you put the tick yourself. ;) Oh, and great job on all those DYKs above. Wow! -- RyRy (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 18 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Amedei Porcelana, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
No problem, I replaced the copyright tag with an unreferenced tag. It is a good start-class article and appears to be well-written. The problem is, it still lacks the references to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thanks for the message, --Jh12 (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. I spend about 95% of my effort writing articles for DYK but try to contribute to "process" on occassion as well. Congratulations on your article and keep up the good work. - Boston (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taxoboxes
Actually, I don't mind the taxobox errors all that much (I make stupid copy-pasting errors all. the. frickin'. time. over at Wiktionary), but if you could take a bit more time to add a relevant category or two to your new articles, that would be swell ;-) Circeus (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. Often, maybe even most of the time, I do. I'll watch that more carefully though! Haste makes waste and all that. Thanks. - Boston (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irene
This can be explained by the "critical response" section. I don't revert what other people do. However, I might recommend that you rephrase it to say: "It has the distinction of being the work that Johnson and his critics agreed is his greatest failure". Johnson did dislike the work afterwards, as did most of his critics. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In case there's confusion, I added the [citation needed] prompt but don't object to the wording. The statement as given now, as well as your alternative suggestion, do both require an in-line citation. - Boston (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is what MOS says on the issue: "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality." However, there is no material available to suggest that Johnson et al thought that the play was good or a commercial success, so I don't know if it falls under "controversial" enough to warrant duplicate citations. However, if you raise the concern, then it automatically suggests that it could. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I am missing something or perhaps you're overthinking this (or both) -- Why not just add the citations if they can be added? - 17:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for adding those in-line references. I am happy to help you understand if I can. Basically, whenever there's a statement like (for example) "...is widely-considered a delicacy" or "...was regarded as his greatest failure/success" or anything like that, it's a good idea to show an inline citation to make it clear that the point of view being discussed is verifiable and is not just the editor's own POV or own conclusion. I'm not sure where this is explained in the MOS or similar documents, but after a time you'll probably come to instantly recognize where these are needed. Happy editing. - Boston (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its not really my understanding, because I know what you were saying. :) I just want to make sure that others in the future realize the process, so there wont be any problems. Paper work, I guess you could say? Anyway, thanks for looking out for the page. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yeah I have slipped in a few unreferenced statements. It's encouraging that somebody's noticing though! Thanks. Dunno if Irish singing is your thing (it is mine, in case you haven't noticed) but if so, I'd love your feedback on some of my articles particularly Frank Harte. Cheers. --Seamasmac (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 21 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bazil Ashmawy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 22 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kazabazua River, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thx for the barnstar - I again feel like "a city on a hill" ... feels good. I shall think of my barnstar as a civic roll (with bacon!) cheers Victuallers (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 22 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dinosaur Footprints, which you recently created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 22 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wasque, which you recently created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 23 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Petticoat Hill, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The Did you know? hook based on a fact from the article you created or substantially expanded, Photuris pennsylvanica, has been added to the Wikipedia Portal, Portal:Pennsylvania. Thank you for your contributions in this topic! If you know of another relevant fact from an article that has appeared at Did you know?, then please suggest it at the associated portal talk page.
For the exceptional amount you have contributed to the wild and wacky world of WP:DYK (how many more "W"s can you have in a sentence?), I present you the coveted 100 DYK medal. Keep up your excellant work. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed]02:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 24 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chamaeleo melleri, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Well, for a while I was cranking out a few day and I had them backlogged in my sandbox. I've slowed down in the last few days and may be getting Wikipedia out of my system for a while! - Boston (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DYK hooks
Hi colleague. I've been campaigning for what I call "shorter, sharper hooks" for 2 years and will probably continue to do so. I respect your work on DYK and respectfully understand that other editors will have opinions differing from mine. Please don't take it personally when I identify how I would change hooks you suggest. I'm not implying you do take it personally...I'm only saying this to promote wikilove and all the stuff! We can disagree about this forever and I'll still be happy to work with you. Best wishes and happy editing. - Boston (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I'm a great admirer of your "unwritten rules" and a few weeks ago was actually wondering why you didn't say anything about brevity of hooks along the lines of "shorter is generally better." Now I know why! (smile) - Boston (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Boston. Thank you for the msg. I hope you didn't think that I was upset or anything. I like your work, too. Like you, I prefer shorter, sharper hooks. However, IMO, "sharper" is more important than "shorter". Shorter is indeed generally better, but it's good to have a little extra info so that any general readers (esp. those not familiar with the topic) can appreciate the hook better, and add a little colour and hue so as to paint a nicer picture, so to speak. Hooks that are too short and lack context would appear to be esoteric, and readers would (or at least I would) just give up and move on to the next hook. You will probably disagree about this and I'll still be happy to work with you in DYK, too. It's probably best for us to just leave our comments on T:TDYK and let the hook selectors decide what ends up on MainPage. Oh, btw, User:Art LaPella is not my sock. :-) Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think you were a sock...that was just a mindless error on my part because I was watching Lord of the Rings and trying to articulate at the same time! Nor did I think you were upset; I just thought some preventative medicine wouldn't hurt. As for the actual matter under discussion, I guess we both value brevity, only to much different degrees. The cases where I've suggested a cutting a hook way back and someone adds some of it back is exemplary of collaborative editing at its best. Thanks for the note and best wishes. - Boston (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should read "and John Boyle O'Reilly, many of which were written in Irish?" Thank you for proofreading and catching my omission. Enjoy the day!Scanlan (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 26 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Iranistan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 27 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article sang piao xiao, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The old user name made a wrong first impression. Also, HoS is a screen name I have been using since 1995 and I still use on various sites and I just wanted to disassociate the encyclopedic me from the more carnal me. It's nice for someone to have noticed the name change enough to comment though! Thanks for that and for the DYK note. - Boston (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 29 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sandia Hairstreak, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Terrific new article - and I am curious. Huffing and puffing my way through Fauna of Scotland I decided it had too many red links and bashed in a few new species articles which led me down various highways and byways. I red linked "Pteridomania" on two or three of them as it seemed like a credible topic. Was its appearance shortly thereafter a co-incidence, or did the red links prompt something? Also, I note the article does not mention the devastating effects on rare species in upland Britain. It'd be easy enough to cut and paste a few anecdotes from Woodsia alpina (the story about Williams is farcical), Woodsia ilvensis, Trichomanes speciosum, Cystopteris dickieana. BenMacDui10:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the positive appraisal; likewise, you do a great job on the topics you handle. I recall intending to mention the negative effects of pteridomania on certain native species, but since I didn't follow through the addition of material explaining that (all neat and cited, of course) would be great. As best I remember, my creation of the pteridomania article was prompted by the red link in the Cystopteris dickieana article. Some red links are too tempting to not write about. For me, pteridomania was one and, more recently, "Chinese Hand Laundry Alliance was another. Boston (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 4 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dexter Drumlin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Wow, you've been a DYK machine lately. Great job - keep it up! I'm surprised to see an article on a drumlin - it's always good to see geology articles. --Royalbroil01:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 4 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henri Lhote, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
and btw great work on that article of Henri Lhote, I didn't realise all that stuff about him when I set up the translation a few days ago. The credit is to you! Cheers, Eebahgum (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, we'll share credit. BTW...my version of the Henri Lhote article was already in my sandbox when you posted the article. Did I make a Henri Lhote-related edit on mainspace that prompted you? I'm just curious. - Boston (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. My first thought after your response was that you must have done some edit in mainspace that I saw instead of the other way around as I suggested. However, I recall coming to Henri Lhote from Arbre du Ténéré, and I got there from List of trees, so it really is a coincidence. Happy editing. Boston (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 7 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Suta dwyeri, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 8 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Commodore Nutt, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Yes, I read the header and waiting those moments for the page to load you did have me fooled! I thought your were a dumb and overzealous bot. Thanks for the note. Boston (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DYK
On 9 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Caesarsboom, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 11 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lucien Price, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 14 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mobile Tigers, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
When you add refs to articles, could you please hide the external links by putting them within the title? Ie, instead of writing [http://example.com] Example (which appears as [1] Example), write [http://example.com Example] (which appears as Example).
To make things easier, you can also use citation templates, which do all the formatting for you. Thanks, —Politizertalk/contribs16:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pregunta
Haha, I noticed your post on a user's talk page, which was promptly deleted, and it crossed my mind to ask: Do you know what the policy is on regularly jumping back and forth between editing as a registered user and an IP address? There's certainly an open admission, but the regular deletion of talk page comments and jumping back and forth both seem a bit curious to me, and I don't know nearly enough about these things to even have an opinion beyond "intriguing". --Aepoutre (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not much of a wikilawyer. The best I can do is refer you to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry so that you might digest the material there and see whether it is applicable to whatever specific behavior you've identified. Best wishes. Boston (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question: Why have you twice now, placed a template on this article indicating that it lacks reliable third party referencing, when in actuality, it already contains a substantiating citation from a standard reference in the field of the study of new religious groups? [2] Granted, the article could use further expansion and the addition of other reliable references, but isn't basic "notability" addressed by the groups inclusion in a basic source on the subject? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your question is an excellent one. I'm concerned that Melton may be being used here as a reference for other points discussed in the article rather than as verification of the notability of the subject of the article itself -- a common Wikipedia ploy. If Sons Aumen Israel actually has an entry in Encyclopedia of American Religions then notability would be established to my satisfaction (although necessarily to the satisfaction of Wikipedia policy which usually requires three sources). In the meanwhile, I am extremely suspicious of an article about a religion started by four people in 1981 for which the sole online reference provided is the group's own website. Boston (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With All Due Respect.
I am not sure that is is such a good advise.
I think you're on the right track adding fact tags. However, when something just smacks of original research, someone's opinion, or just seems like a dumb thing to include in an article, I advise you to just remove it. Be bold! Happy editing - House of Scandal (talk) 03:17, 3 August
I appreciate your concern but my advice is in line with Wikipedia policy (W:be bold). Please note that I did not recommend anyone remove context merely because "hey do not recognize something" as you say. Rather I recommend that original research, point of view and irrelevancies be removed from articles. That isn't just good advice, it's policy. Best wishes. Boston (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I think I understand perfectly how you were thinking.
But I wonder if others did it.[3]. (Damper is a traditional Australian wheat flour based outback soda bread, traditionally baked in the coals of a campfire. Damper is an iconic Australian dish, and Christmas Damper is bread moulded into a wreath, or a star, served with butter, jam, honey or golden syrup. ).
According to the rhombus article, "a rhombus...is an equilateral parallelogram. In other words, it is a four-sided polygon in which every side has the same length...A rhombus is a variety of quadrilateral. A rhombus with right angles is a square."
However, as the term 'rhomboid' apparently refers to a distinct (albeit similar) type of quadrilateral polygon, one cannot, oddly enough, apparently describe a 'rhombus' as being 'rhomboidal'. My bad. :) -70.251.131.28 (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References in Annunciation Melkite Catholic Cathedral
Thanks for your note, Boston. Reference URLs on the cathedral website need to be respecified, because that web site uses frames. The page displayed when a user opens http://www.melkitecathedral.org/ does not contain any of the history facts in the article. Regards. Chonak (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the point your making but still think there's a strong argument that this is primarily a Scandinavian phenomenon. The countries listed are mostly Scandinavian if not 'Nordic'. I am of south Italian ancestry and appreciate there is a tradition of veneration of Santa Lucia but it's not really in the same class. In sweden St Lucy's day is a national festival that involves school children, ceremonies and even the monarchy. In southern Italy celebrations are usually limited to a village parade or so. Now I'm happy to accept that the Nordic idea of St Lucy has very little to do with the woman (rather a pagan hangover) but that's a different issue. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Boston, Although I have no doubt that your efforts to protect the recent edits to the Python reticulatus article have been in good faith, this is not the place to put information regarding individual specimens with cute names of which it is claimed by the zoo or the media that they is the longest/largest in captivity.
You have to start by asking yourself seriously whether Fox News or the Columbus Zoo are reliable and objective sources for this information. I would argue that neither of them are. The zoo has an interest in maintaining the impression that they are indeed in possession of the largest specimen of P. reticulatus in captivity, because they hope to use this to attract more visitors to their zoo. Fox News, on the other hand, is in the business of selling stories and, like many popular news outlets, has a history of exaggerating the facts, or at least not checking up on them. In this case, the zoo is willing to make the claim, so Fox is more than happy to pass this on the the public as fact.
On the other hand, if you or User:Achilles11719 can find a publication written by an outside authority, on the subject of this species, or even on large boas/pythons in general, to back up this claim made by the Columbus Zoo, then we will be able to use that source as a proper reference. However, you have to realize how unlikely this is: all over the world such records are claimed quite frequently and they take time and effort to verify. We need to stick to the facts. Therefore, I will continue to object to this information being added to the article unless someone can produce a reliable reference. --Jwinius (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Indeed, I am not totally convinced that the Columbus zoo has the largest specimen in captivity. What the edits contained was the information that this snake is billed as the largest. That is fact. Remember that this article isn't just for aspiring herpetologists. It's intended to be of general interest. I believe this article can best be improved not by excluding mention of the obnoxiously-named Fluffy, but rather by adding a few other claims for the "biggest in captivity" to that section. A short paragraph saying this zoo claims "x" and this place claims "y" would be idea. Wouldn't you enjoy seeing a few of these claims grouped together? --Boston (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching this, and also occasionally 'policing' the lengths of various herps. IMHO, "reported" lengths come under 'speculation'. Until the snake is actually measured under anaesthesia (or dies), this is just a wild claim. Large snakes are incredibly hard to accurately measure, either by estimation or by hand (since they're too strong to straighten out), and weight is useless because captive snakes are almost invariably obese, often frighteningly so. I should also note that, once I dig up the reference I have (at some point, Jwinius, remind me to do this, I've just been swamped lately), I'm going to be ditching the 32 foot length too, acknowledging it only as a rumor, since there is no specimen, remains or any other confirmation beyond rumor, and instead citing the 27.5 foot captive specimen as the largest confirmed. More generally, I'm not sure why "largest living" warrants mention. Maximum size, yes, but that goes to the dead 27.5 footer. It just seems superfluous to me. Mokele (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My revised text focus on this ambiguity. I'm a very amateur herp guy and I think this info is of very broad interest. I hope you'll agree. --Boston (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that none of these media reports are worth mentioning in articles such as this one. We're trying to collect facts in a reliable manner. Of course it's a fact that zoos make these claims, but so what? We're here to inform our readers -- not entertain them. Filling our articles with such "facts" only helps to obscure the truth from our readers, which doesn't help when you're dealing with a species that has been so completely surrounded by mystery and exaggeration for so long, that most people have no idea what's true about it and what's not. Dozens of these stories are produced every year and none of them are reliable. Read WP:Reliable sources, and in particular the section on news organizations. Remember also that in a year or two those links will all be dead anyway. The best thing we can do is to find and cite a publication by an authority on the subject that describes some of the large specimens in captivity, but in the mean time we should do nothing except to mention the maximum length and the fact that this species is a staple in zoos all around the world. --Jwinius (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to remember and embrace the collaborative nature of this project. You are arguing that this information is irrelevant (correct?) I am saying it is relevant. In cases such as this in which the information is adequately cited and presented as what it is (in this case, claims made about a living specimens) rather than being presented as what it is not (empirical data), it is difficult to force exclusion. In cases such as this, we err on the side of inclusion. You might want the article to contain nothing but empirical data, but that's not a Wikipedia policy. Cross-disciplinary discussion (science, history, pop culture, etc.) is a hallmark of this project. I truly sympathize regarding the frustration one feels when one's preferences for an article can't be realized. To force the exclusion of this material, a very strong case has to be made that this really hurts the article. I haven't seen that case made. Yes, if we blithely presented Fluffy (annoying, I know) as the largest in captivity then we might be parroting misinformation. That is not the case with this section now. - --Boston (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a collaborative project, but that doesn't have to mean that these articles always have to be dragged down to the level of the lowest common denominator. You can cite as many of those news references as you want (which can often all be traced back to a single Reuters article), but that doesn't make the information any more accurate. Popular journalism should never be confused with science.
The main reason I prefer to exclude this kind of information from these articles is that snakes are already surrounded by so much misunderstanding, particularly exceptional species such as this one. Therefore, we have to be careful not to further perpetuate this misunderstanding. The references are weak and I'll bet it's not even true that "Fluffy" is actually 24 feet long, because, as Mokele said, it is so very difficult to accurately measure the length of such large snakes. However, have you also considered that this information can also be seen as an advertisement for the Columbus Zoo? How can we even be sure that Achilles11719 does not work there? --Jwinius (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see your concern about such a mention being an advertisement for the Columbus Zoo as valid. Anything on Wikipedia mentioning anything for which money is charged could be the target of a similar complaint. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the text discusses the zoo's claim. It's beside the point, but I think the snake probably is approximately the length claimed as best could be determined by the professional herpetologists at the zoo who are responsible for making that determination. If you don't give weight to their scruples, give weight to their prudence in knowing they are under international scrutiny and their claim could be publically challenged by another zoo. BTW, I object to being categorized as "the lowest common denominator" for finding interest in the claims made by certain zoos and parks as to size of their specimens. --Boston (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you overestimate the zoo's capability in this regard. A snake even close to that size is incredibly dangerous and difficult to handle, even if tame. Stretching it out is impossible, weight is worthless, and measuring it while resting is so error prone as to be as good as worthless. Remember, what determines the length of the snake is the length of the vertebral column, and that vertebral column is deep within musculature and overlaid by skin which is highly mobile in all directions. "Eyeballing", even by experienced herpers, is utterly worthless - in an impromptu test during an anaconda-catching expedition, half a dozen experts tried estimating lengths before capture, then measuring, and found that they were frequently overshooting by 20% of the snake's length. In a snake this size, that's enough to drop it from 'exceptional' to 'big but nomral'. Mokele (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jwinius brings up my main issue - are those lengths even *right*? Without measurement of a dead or drugged individual, they're highly suspect, and with so many wild stories of the length of this animal, a line must be drawn somewhere. If you allow speculative claims in, you might as well endorse the claims of that Asian zoo to having a 49 foot retic (even though it's clearly and demonstrably false). IMHO, we shouldn't even give a number unless it can be traced to either a peer-reviewed article reporting on a drugged animal, or to a museum specimen number. I realize I'm rather 'hard-core' in this respect, but the value of any information source, including WP, depends upon its reliability - if I have reason to doubt some information, I have reason to doubt all of it from that source. WP has truly great potential, and IMHO what limits that potential is the perception of unreliability by many readers. By enforcing stringent rules about verified lengths vs 'reports' and rumors, we can do our part of assuage that doubt. Mokele (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty of measuring specimens might be included along with the zoo claims and even more extraordinary claims in its own section entitled "length disputes" or something similar. --Boston (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's something that we should mention by itself, such as has been done in the Eunectes murinus article, but I'm against using that as a green light to then go ahead and include in the text every report like this that appears in the media. Rather, our approach should simply be to mention A.) the maximum length we believe to be accurate, B.) that the lengths of large species such as this have been heavily exaggerated for centuries, C.) that it is very difficult to accurately measure the length of a large, live specimen, and D.) that they are a staple of zoo exhibits around the world. Once people understand this, they can make up their own minds about whether or not to believe what they read in the popular press. --Jwinius (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should not "go ahead and include in the text every report like this that appears in the media" and haven't given any indication otherwise. Likewise I have not indicated that I favor the inclusion of false information. Who would? I am concerned by your conscious intention to shape people's perceptions by the exclusion of information. Wikipedia is not censored. --Boston (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we shouldn't just "go ahead and include in the text every report like this that appears in the media," then where do we draw the line? Do we make an exception just this one time? If so, what is so special about it? As for false information, it's been explained now that there is good reason to believe that it is not accurate. Censorship?? FYI, this is the normal editorial process at Wikipedia. I happen to believe it's important to keep nonsense and other unless information like this from filling up these articles. In this case I fail to see why many of our visitors from around the world would be impressed to see that we felt it necessary to mention "Fluffy," the allegedly 24-foot specimen in the Columbus Zoo, as reported by the popular press. If you believe otherwise think of a better argument, but don't go making silly accusations. --Jwinius (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
,_mating.jpg)
