Jump to content

User talk:Keesiewonder

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Justas Jonas (talk | contribs) at 18:04, 20 January 2007 (→‎AN/I). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Cataloging, Citing, ... 1
Dogs 1
Misc 1
Religion-Faith-Dialog-... 1
Science 1

Martin Luther Page

Keesiewonder, thanks for sharing my concern about "Slim Virgin" and this person's unilateral edits. I've done a google search on this person and researched this person's history on Wikipedia and let's just say that we have in this person a notoriously flagrant violatoer of Wikipedia policies, and, frankly, a Wikipedia bully. The only way to deal with this king of thuggery is simply to keep reverting this person's edits. If you and I do this every day this person may lose interest and go away, but, on the other hand, "she" and I put "she" in quotes for I've learned there is every reason to believe this person is not a "she" at all, may call in her other allies on these Jewish POV issues and they will cause problems. But if you want, you and I and anyone else who share our concerns can just keep reverting this person's vandalism on the Luther page. Johann Friedrich 11:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. Ok, let's see if there's a politically correct way a la Wikipedia to deal with this. I'm relatively new, as I said. And, by the looks of your empty user page, empty talk page, and contribution list that began less than 8 hours ago, you look even newer to me. Just an observation; I realize you may have other accounts with much longer histories. Anyway, if what you're telling me is true, then the bulk of users on WP would probably join forces with you and/or us and the end result may be that at a minimum, administrator privileges, for example, may be taken away temporarily. My life experience tells me that getting in to a revert war in hopes that we win is probably not going to have the intended effects we seek.
Please don't get me wrong; I am quite proficient at causing a tremendous amount of effective trouble ... but ... do not like to be a troublemaker ... Nor do I feel that people who know me well see that as my purpose in life. My instincts tell me to try to proceed with the information you have offered me in a 'right' way, rather than just responding in a manner that may be perceived as responding in kind.
I expect other users are going to quickly see this part of my talk page and may offer some advice on how to proceed. May I also suggest that you and I, in all our spare time (HA!), figure out how to proceed with the existing policies on WP? For me, that means locating and reading about what options undoubtedly already exist for dealing with a situation such as this one involving an administrator. I realize that being an admim has perhaps little to do with the ML article, but, perhaps more than a revert war, it is something that SV would notice in a broader way. Thanks for your correspondence, I assure you I am female!, and if you prefer, you may email me at the link to the left. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 11:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was a request for advice, I can't hold back my own two cents here. Without even looking at the ML article, and considering just your comment here, I'm assuming you're in a potential edit war with a person who happens to be an administrator. There are various procedural remedies but they are kind of slow. If there's no claim the administrator has abused his powers, then IMHO it's a plain old edit war among equals in which WP:RFC (Requests for comment) can be considered. Another idea is to find a 'parent project' for the ML page, and you could post there a specific question, asking those editors to look at the page and offer advice. I know this has often been done with positive results in the math and physics projects. Since this could be a 'religious war' kind of deal, you could look through past AfDs in which religious issues have been discussed, and ask one or more of the closing administrators (or AfD proponents, or just anybody) for advice. If a bunch of local editors have got into a weird state, bringing in new observers can help. EdJohnston 03:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got your update on my talk page. Since you pointed me to the thread at ML, I sympathize with the struggle, but it seems you may no longer be the coolest head there (though you were until recently). EdJohnston 03:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info on the ISBN-fixing activity now on my user page

Hello Keesie. Please take a look at the new version of my user page where I tried to summarize the ISBN-fixing activity. Let me know if I missed out on some useful bit of advice for newcomers. So far, there has not been a real project for this work, but it wouldn't hurt if the effort looked a tiny bit respectable, since our changes are sometimes questioned by people who don't know what it's about or why we're doing it. Anyone who starts fixing ISBNs 'automatically' joins the project, whether they want to or not, it's very democratic. :-) EdJohnston 22:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Looking at this and giving you some kind of feedback is my next WP task today. I'm delighted to be considered part of the project! :-) Keesiewonder 20:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add things as I think of them ... one by one ...
  1. Excellent idea to keep a log of the number of incorrect ISBNs we're dealing with. For the overly detailed among us, maybe a second number in the log for the number of total articles would be nice too for some perspective.
  2. I would reword this sentence: The full list of articles still to be fixed can be found at: Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs. Perhaps yielding: The current list of articles with one or more ISBNs requiring fixing can be found at: Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs.
  3. Consider not mentioning Wikipedia:List of pages with Invalid ISBNs at all. Us "old timers" will get rid of it soon enough. For people seeking a nice project to work on, if this kind of "work" is their thing, there's no point in overwhelming them with two lists. Especially since probably 99% of what is on the List version is either already fixed or is on the Category version.
  4. If you could find out what kind of schedule SmackBot is on, i.e. frequency of run, does it check all of the English Wikipedia during each run, etc., that'd be great, or at least something I personally would find helpful/useful/interesting.
  5. However there are relatively few of those numbers in Wikipedia. -> There are relatively few ISSN fixers? There are relatively few ISSNs needing fixing?
  6. FWIW, my personal preference, most to least, is ISBN, OCLC, LCCN, ASIN ... i.e. reverse the last two.
  7. Maybe try drafting a guideline's section. It could include things like
  • Only include an ASIN if you cannot find a valid one of the other three cataloging numbers.
  • Don't worry if you don't know the 'proper' placement of the dashes since an auto-something-or-other will come along to fix it (eventually).
  • If you start with a page with an ISBN tagged as being in error, and need to supersede it with, say, an OCLC, consider leaving a courteous message on the article's talk page explaining what happened and leave the invalid ISBN visible inside html code. (An example of this will be necessary so it remains visible to editors and invisible to readers.) You may also want to leave a copy of the original citation with the "bad" ISBN on the talk page.
  • If you're really stuck, move on to the next ISBN in error; if you don't like to leave things unfinished, make an effort to get help from people who may be able to help such as the frequent contributors to the article or the article's talk page, relevant portals, forums outside of Wikipedia, other ISBN fixers on Wikipedia, etc. Concise clues from your seemingly unsuccessful findings are most welcome within the html code written above. If you need to be more verbose about the situation, use the article's talk page.
  • Be especially careful when editing articles with complicated reference list structures such as 75 in text citations.
  • Be certain to do what you can to maintain the existing citation style in the article. If the article is using APA, stick with APA. If the article is using CMS, stick with CMS. If there is no citation style, or it is a mess, tactfully consider tidying things up by converting to citation templates, alphabetizing lists, etc. This is completely optional, since your primary intent is probably to clean up the "bad" ISBNs.
  • Expect that there will be articles where the editors most familiar with the material will want to continue listing the ISBN, even if it is "bad." This is okay. A possible compromise may be to list the ISBN as I S B N since it appears that SmackBot does not identify bad I S B Ns, only bad ISBNs.
  • It is ok to end up deleting an ISBN entirely, yielding a book citation that is just author, title, publication date ... or whatever the article editors want. It is probably best to communicate this on the talk page over at least a couple days ... i.e. try not to delete the ISBN in one sitting. Come back another day, try to find it again, correspond with those who may care about the article content, and, if all else fails, eliminate the ISBN, and leave a trail on the talk page regarding what happened.
8. I made a list of tools I like using when doing ISBN work. You can find it on my user page, and, I'll put it here for you as well.
Tools to help:

Ok -- That's my first draft pass thinking about this. Hope you're not sorry you asked. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 21:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Olde English Bulldogge

I picked up your name from the Wiki dog project page, would you please chime in on this Winston Olde English Bulldogge debate and cast a vote. thank you Headphonos 02:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can vote to Overturn at the link provided above, and please state your reasons. Thank you. Headphonos 02:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, they have deletion votes for the Wilkinson Bulldog and Olde English Bulldogge Headphonos 03:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For working with this editor. I'm backing out of the discussion, because I'm not as knowledgable as you are on it. The content of the article in question (now that I've read it on the mirror site), was gorgeously written and fascinating to me. I had a pure-bred Olde English Sheepdog as a child, so that's my "dog in the race" (lol).

There's got to be something he wants to do - I hate to see an editor like this so discouraged. It would truly suck if my first article got deleted. He also writes far better than myself. On a side note, I'm really hoping that the extinct breeds are covered more on Wikipedia some day. I find the topic of extinct animals and plants fascinating, but I also understand why they aren't covered right now. Sincerely, Nina Odell 14:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have clarified that I'm not knowledgeable at all. I just advocate for new users getting into the appropriate Wikiproject or projects that fit their interests. Headphonos posted his message on Jimbo Wales talk page, which I patrol occasionally (until I'm thoroughly annoyed, then I remove it - lol) so I thought I'd help him out. But really, this is our fork in the road. I do want to say I think you're a fine member of Wikipedia, and I'm glad our paths crossed. I appreciate your kindness and civility. Sincerely, Nina Odell 23:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Bulldogs

Personally, I need to understand the distinction between extinction and recreation of a breed better. If I remember correctly, the article that was deleted was about a recreation effort (Winston Olde English Bulldogge). Before I champion for the breed and the breed's article, I need to be absolutely certain it is not akin to something like the Keesiwonder's Olde English Bulldogge, for example. Even if 30 people have one of these dogs in 10 different countries, that still does not immediately mean to me that WP should have an article about them.

(The following note was copied by Keesiewonder from another user's talk page since they were not really part of the dog content part of the conversation.)

Hello Keesiewonder, does the Wilkinson Bulldog article have enough external links and reference book citations for you to vote to "keep"? If not, then it reaffirms my conversation with Anon that hundreds of additional articles on the List of dog breeds can be successfully deleted. IMHO rare and extinct breeds should be allowed at wikipedia not only the one's recognized by the major Category:Kennel clubs and/or the FCI. The establisment of organizations such as ARBA or the ARF recognize these issues. If members of the Wiki dog project aren't online with these statements, then the project is doomed to be dramatically downsized, with some editors, myself included calling it a wiki failure. In regard to the Old Winston Bulldogge article that was deleted by an adminstrator without even a vote being called here is nice piece of history on the breed OWB. I like the aluminum street sign Winston Olde English Bulldogge STREET SIGN best myself -:) Headphonos 15:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Headphonos. My approach with this is to do one thing at a time. Right now, I am focused on getting the speedy delete of Winston Olde English Bulldogge overturned. Regardless of what I might say in an AfD on that article, I do not like the fact that from what I can tell, it was speedy deleted inappropriately. I am interested in this issue in part because I want to better understand the "powers" and "privileges" of admins. Most of my books are in storage right now, which is very frustrating for me. So, I just came back from a trip to a local Borders. One book I bought was an encyclopedia-like book on dogs. Stay tuned, keep the faith, and be patient! :-) Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 20:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I tagged a comment of my own on to the original note I saw from you about the 1800 breeds that would have to be deleted if ... I asked for the list in good faith. You could email it to me, also in good faith. Keesiewonder 20:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ... one thing that needs to be straightened out is if you would like to see some changes implemented at either of the two major dog projects at Wikipedia, your best approach would be to contact them directly on their project pages. You may certainly say that you and I have corresponded. But, I do not want to try to represent the project in full on individual user talk pages. Let's move this conversation to one or both of the dog related projects, if you feel there are some serious changes that should be made. I am probably one of the most recent members of each project, so to single me out as the one to talk with may not be the best approach.

Also, you may want to be careful about implying that the project members are not on board with certain issues and/or statements. Especially if you have not been participating on the project talk pages. (I don't know whether you have, or have not.) But when I first read your notes, I felt like you were making all kinds of assumptions that I hadn't heard about or seen substantiation for ... at least not yet. It is a pretty loaded statement, isn't it, to project that the dog projects are doomed to be downsized and deemed a wiki-failure if they don't do what you are suggesting? How long have you been a editor on Wikipedia? How long have you worked with the dog project members? Do you think that even if several dog project editors were willing to work with you on your visions for the projects that significant changes like an overhaul of dog related categories would happen within, say, even a week's time? Let's assume good faith here, all the way around, and find a way to work together, please. I have seen some good points in some of your posts, and would be more than happy to try to flush them out with you. But, we need to collaborate. Keesiewonder 00:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q: does the Wilkinson Bulldog article have enough external links and reference book citations for you to vote to "keep"?
A: For me, it is not about the number of external links and/or book citations. Not quantity, but quality. These two may be wonderful; I don't have them on my desk, but since they are easy to find in the places I like to check, they seem fine. I would like to see some additional ones from a different publisher. Also, while there are two books listed at the end of the article, not a single statement is cited within the article. If you'd like, I could pass through it lending my opinion on where a citation is necessary. Keesiewonder 00:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement: If not, then it reaffirms my conversation with Anon that hundreds of additional articles on the List of dog breeds can be successfully deleted.

Response: Please don't try to bully me in to an answer one way or another. I assure you I will consider our topic carefully, but, if not allowed to think for and to express myself on the issue you brought to my attention, then, we may not work well together. Also, I would like to know what the 1,800 articles are that you feel violate current policy per the dog projects on Wikipedia. I have asked for this multiple times (but only today, I know), but, have yet to receive clarification from you on this. I'll be patient, but will take notice if you don't respond within, say, a week, or, if I see you posting lots of material, but not responding to what I have asked.

Statement: IMHO rare and extinct breeds should be allowed at wikipedia.

Response: That sounds fair. Can you give me, say, 6 significant and completely different examples where you see this has not happened?

Statement: Keesiewonder will be the first to admin she is confused about all the different kinds of Bulldogs. When she is asked about Bulldog A, and provides answers pertaining to Bulldog A, questions come back about "Bulldog B", "Bulldog C" and "A Bulldog that Sounds like Bulldog A but Might Not Always be Bulldog A." Could you make a nice list for me of what is going on here? Here's what I've seen, just on WP. How are all of these related? Which ones are equivalent, if any?

List of Bulldog (Bull Dog, Bull Terrier, Pit Bull) Breeds on Wikipedia

Aylestone Bulldog
Bulldog, British Bulldog
Bull and Terrier
Bullenbeisser
British Bulldogge
Continental Bulldog
Dorset Old Tyme Bulldog
English Bulldog
French Bulldog
Old English Bulldog
Old Winston Bulldogge
Olde English Bulldogge
Olde English Bulldogge Kennel Club
Olde Englishe Bulldogge
Toy Bulldog
Renaissance Bulldog
Renascence Bulldogge
Victorian Bulldog
Wilkinson Bulldog
Winston Olde English Bulldogge
WInston Olde English Bulldogge

Guideline draft needed

Hi Keesie, thanks for your very thorough review of my notes on ISBN-fixing! Since you would like there to be a guidelines document, do you want to start writing one? For instance, you could create it as a subpage under User:Keesiewonder, and I could add a link to it from the other document. EdJohnston 03:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly; I'll let you know when it's ready. Keesiewonder 13:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voting thing

Ok, thanks for the note and correction. I appreciate your effort at the Martin Luther page. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judeophobia

  • Very few academic sources will refer to persecution of Jews until the 1800's as anti-Semitism, though once you get into Christian Europe you will find more examples. In ancient history however, and Jews in Muslim lands, much more often it will simply be referred to as "persecution" as the Jews weren't being targeted any more than any other group (again until the rise of Christianity). -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 22:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, yes, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you! Might there be good reasons, then, to have an article on Judeophobia. It seems like you have articulated a clear distinction between Judeophobia and anti-Semitism; yet the former redirects to the latter in WP.
Another thing I've been trying to form an opinion on is why only one person is mentioned in WP' anti-Judaism category [1] - i.e. a category for one person, one sub-category, and one article. Of course and unfortunately anti-Judaism exists. But is there only one person for all of time who can be assigned to that category? I've struggled with this some on the talk page at the Martin Luther article; you may have already noticed it. If you can help me think through this one ... I'd greatly appreciate it. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 22:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A lone voice in the wilderness...

I hate to say it, lady, but I think you might have seen how inactive the projects are. Very few people will respond to anything, as most of them are primarily interested in their own favorite breeds, and know little if anything about anything else. The one I knew who might have helped, Blufawn, understandably begged off because of what happened to the Tamaskan Dog article, although she did respond to my talk page. I did however change my own opinion after her comment accordingly. Also, unfortunately, few people have the ready access to information that you do, and often can't respond with any real knowledge about the subject. Right now, you are probably carrying a lot of the dog work on your own shoulders, and I sincerely wish we could get others to help more often. I wish it were otherwise, but... Also, we can be hopeful and say that they are all really, really, really busy today. I know I'm tied up elsewhere right now, but I will try to respond when I know something about the subject myself. Unfortunately, I regret to say, that really ain't that often. I know that this is probably very small consolation, but I just wanted you to know that someone did see your notices. Badbilltucker 00:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can always try "spamming" (whatever, contacting) each individual member on their talk pages, or via email. That's what I intend to do with Sexuality and Sexology, as well as Wikiproject Psychology:). NinaOdell | Talk 15:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your perspective. Mass mailing/contacting is really not my style. I'll just keep doing what I'm doing. I believe in my "work" here and my message ... eventually it'll all come together. Regards, Keesiewonder 00:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated ISBN_fixing page

Hello Keesiewonder. I updated User:EdJohnston/ISBN_fixing in response to your suggestions. I think keeping the List is still worthwhile, because it's a means of communication about difficult numbers. If you do decide to write up your proposed Guidelines, I'll link to that as well. Can you put the list of Tools on the same page, or do you prefer that we link to your User page for those? EdJohnston 16:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will do a guidelines and tools document draft; haven't forgotten; just too busy in real life. Keesiewonder 00:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see a draft at User:Keesiewonder/ISBN_Fixing_Guidelines. Feedback, as always, is welcome. Keesiewonder 14:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello KW. I agree with everything you said! At first, I thought you should mention 'published invalid' numbers, but we can actually get along without that concept. For a while I was trying to save all the published invalid numbers on the Talk page of CAT:INVALID. In practice, we do seem to wind up removing ISBNs that are uncorrectable even if we're not completely sure they were published that way. ISBN-fixers are usually quite persuasive in discussing the problems with regular page editors, regardless of learning the ultimate truth about a particular ISBN.
We could perhaps maintain a central list of removed ISBNs, since it happens that someone will get inspired and go back and fix one that seemed unfixable at the time. If you agree, that's something that might be aded to the guidelines draft. (Some people are making detailed notes on the List page already, and that page could eventually be turned into a removed-ISBN list, with notes of what was tried). EdJohnston 15:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your patronizing remarks and personal insults on the Luther page

It's fairly obvious to me, and no doubt anyone else who reads your comments, that you can't participate on the Martin Luther page without emotionalizing everything. The patronizing tone you take over against new users, your constant references to your style and how busy you are...well, it's just getting old. Maybe you should consider sticking to "real life" since Wikipedia seems to be a source of such personal frustration and angst for you. Stop the personal attacks. And stow the patronizing remarks. It's just absurd. And, grow up for heaven's sake. If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen, etc. Justas Jonas 12:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really the activity of a new user? [2] [3] Keesiewonder 12:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question.--Mantanmoreland 22:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN scans

I tend to scan with SmackBot when a data base dump has been completed. This means I can pick likely articles to set SmackBot on, last time 'round it was anything with "ISBN" in it. Rich Farmbrough, 23:16 12 January 2007 (GMT). P.S. I may scan the same list again this time, as no dump seems imminent. RF.

How goes it

  • This place is going to the dogs(and cats).:)
    This place is going to the dogs(and cats).:)

I'm archiving my page, and wanted to say "hi". How did the re-organization go of that Wikiproject? Did it ever happen? I thought it was a noble thing, but I didn't quite get all the issues. I hope all is well in your wiki-world. Sincerely, NinaOdell | Talk 04:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


AN/I

I've chimed in on your AN/I. Weird situation. I am actually sympathetic with this new editor's avowed goal but I find his/her methods simply wrong.--Mantanmoreland 16:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excerpt of supplemental info I placed at AN/I:
So, one question I have is do the following four accounts all stem from one person:
I do not have any personal experience with the last; I do with the first three. Keesiewonder 17:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kees, you might want to report this to the suspected sockpuppets page. See WP:SOCK. I tend to agree with your analysis. --Mantanmoreland 01:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip; I'm afraid that since they have such a backlog and since only one of the 6 has been active within the last week that it may not be a very interesting case. I'll keep my eye on it though. The content rich info box was recently undone, again, about 90 minutes ago. Keesiewonder 01:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More activity, disruption of other's work ... [4] [5]

Relevant? [6], [7], [8].

Ooops? [9] 05:02, January 19, 2007 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) (reposting a thread that seems to have been archived early and replying)

checkuser AN/I

If this and this are both true, I expect there are several Wikipedia editors who would appreciate knowing what other user names and IP addresses have been used to gain in excess of 500 edits on Wikipedia. If there's no truth to the 500+, then some light may have just been shed on the reliability of someone's posts in general. Keesiewonder talk 17:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for showing me that cool tool thing you use. Keesie, I've decided that you are my number one fan! I prefer to think this than to assume that you are disregarding WP:Harassment. Justas Jonas 18:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This month's MCB Collaboration of the Month article is Peripheral membrane protein!

– ClockworkSoul 18:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impressions

I am totally impressed.--Mantanmoreland 01:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC) LOL[reply]

Seriously, I speak as one who failed high school bio. Maximally impressed!--Mantanmoreland 02:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but all I did was help identify that it was an article that needs improvement within the realm of molecular biology articles on WP. Not to say that there isn't something impressive somewhere that I've written or revealed on WP. How about all those different bulldogs, for example?! ;-) Keesiewonder 02:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldogs is my favorite breed and as a matter of fact - whoa! I am weighing in of that AfD. On bio - the fact that you can evaluate articles on molecular biology impresses someone such as myself.--Mantanmoreland 02:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I love bulldogs, but know nada about the breed.--Mantanmoreland 02:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gyeongju ISBN

Hi,

Thanks for bringing this up. An interesting case. The ISBN seems to be correct, or at least correctly copied from the book. Both the back cover and the inside page give the ISBN 89-953630-3-4... on the other hand, that ISBN doesn't appear in any online catalog. The number that does appear in an online catalog is 8995363037, which I presume is properly written out as 89-953630-3-7. Is that any better?

It seems odd that a book would systematically misrepresent its own ISBN. Oh well... Cheers, -- Visviva 05:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me! Unfortunately, books do get published with catalog numbers that do not comply with the internal check digit process. (See [10] or [[11]] for more info.) So, in this case, I bet even if we did find the book in some kind of online catalog such as WorldCat or Amazon, the "bad" ISBN would be "confirmed" there ... but it would still be an invalid ISBN per SmackBot which uses the check digit calculations described at the ISBN article.

Usually I can find the book of interest (i.e. the one with the "bad" ISBN) in a catalog somewhere, and then I can use another catalog number such as the OCLC or simply a web link. Since I (we) cannot do that in this case, my suggestions are as follows:

  • 1) Find a different book that we can cite in this one's place, one that does have a valid catalog number. Might you be familiar enough with the article's content to locate an alternate book with a valid catalog number?
  • 2) Simply remove the ISBN from the article's content. So, the article's reference would end up looking like this ...
  • Kim, Deok-muk (2003). 전국의 기도터와 굿당 (Jeon-gukui gidoteo wa gutdang. The nation's prayer and gut locations). Seoul:한국민속기록보존소.
and the wiki-code like this ...

{{cite book|author=Kim, Deok-muk|year=2003|title=전국의 기도터와 굿당 (Jeon-gukui gidoteo wa gutdang. The nation's prayer and gut locations) |publisher=Seoul:한국민속기록보존소|id=<!--invalid ISBN per publisher is not displayed-->}}

Please let me know your preference. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 10:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the number form the catalogue "should" find the book. Perhaps if it's relatively recent theres a 13 digit barcode/ISBN that can be used? Rich Farmbrough, 22:54 15 January 2007 (GMT).
I tend to agree, and thus, in this case, if I lent the deciding vote, it'd be to eliminate the ISBN that is printed on the book from the WP article. The published one is not valid, fails SmackBot's test, and doesn't seem to be listed in any catalog. The "correct" one provided by Visviva is also not found by any catalog. All around, catalog numbers seem rather useless for this book, so I would resort to title, author, publishing year, publishing company, and leave it at that. Keesiewonder 01:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy King Day

Women, if the soul of the nation is to be saved, I believe that you must become its soul. - Coretta Scott King

checkuser

Yes you have to initiate a request. All information is on that page.Circeus 17:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the outcome of checkuser at [12]. I'm having trouble understanding how it is possible that WP does not have Ptmccain records if WP intended to ban the user indefinately. Someone, please enlighten me if you can. Thanks! Keesiewonder 10:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THe records aren't kept for ever William M. Connolley 09:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me about the checkuser record retention question. Ptmccain was "indefinitely" blocked less than 6 months ago. How long are the records kept? 1 month? 3 months? I, obviously, don't have access to records from 6 months ago, yet, found a tremendous trail that leads to today's possible instances of this former user. If you've had a chance to read my AN/I and notes I've left for myself on my talk page, you'll see the "best" of what I saw. Thanks for your input. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 09:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cite- date

Looks ok to me. Rich Farmbrough, 22:52 15 January 2007 (GMT).

Exceptional newcomer

The Exceptional Newcomer Award
Wasn't going to have you left out. ;) Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious categorization

The link you gave me was to the Category:Messianic Judaism. That category itself is more than a bit problematic, as it's hard to tell if the movement it refers to should be counted as Christian or Judaic. The specific link was a capitalization error to Category:Ancient Christian denominations, which I corrected. I'm actually trying to go through all the religion projects now and work on the tagging and categorization of the articles. Unfortunately, I've only gotten through Shinto and Japanese mythology so far (starting from the bottom of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture/Philosophy and religion page, and know that the bulk of the work still lies ahead of me. That's one of the reasons I started like a coward from the "easier" end, actually. But, maybe by the end of this month or next, most of the categorization in the religion sector will make a bit more sense. And, actually, my old cold has now disappeared. YAY! The weather kind of screwed things up, including electricity, over the weekend, but that seems to be fixed now too, thankfully. Anyway, I've no started on the Paranormal articles, and think that the tagging and categorization should be cleaned up relatively shortly. Badbilltucker 14:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Thanks for the comment the other day. Yeah, it's a weird dialogue, huh? Then I got blocked for the stupidest thing on the Folke Bernadotte page, so now I'm having to start over!

Speaking of, I looked through your user boxes -- have you ever been to Scandinavia? I used to live in Sweden. Best, Mackan79 01:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitham

If my mental mathematics is correct of the 74 items that call up with a search charles whitham - 16 items are not related - then 57 articles - many stubs are the ones that need the cleanup..SatuSuro 10:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that youre the only person I know who appears to have two talk pages - Typical that I should get that wrong...SatuSuro 12:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its ingenious - I could actually do the threads of conversation with sub pages - SatuSuro/Western Australia, SatuSuro/Indonesia and Java, SatuSuro/Tasmania, SatuSuro/Maritime - I'm sure some smart admin would pull me up If I tried it though :( SatuSuro 12:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • :-)
The manul cleaning up is very slow I found another tasmanian editor I hadnt met who has created a whole range of articles that are classic sitting ducks for afd and I am trying to let him (I presume) know a few survivial techniques - there are always so many diversions  :) SatuSuro 15:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to address some of the Whitham references this weekend if that is ok with you. I can help discuss AfDs and/or clean up articles too ... as long as I can "vote" in AfDs as I see fit. Let me know ... :-) ... Keesiewonder 16:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine - I hve no possession issue over anything but my user and talk page - so go ahead - you might find my way of linking has been to make sure the isbn and comments are out - and have 'see charles whitham for further details - if that can be imporved - do wht ever you like - I was bit astonished that I had done so many articles for the west coast! The potential target for afd articles I will not bring up until I have had a chance to have a chat with the new editor - no sign no word yet SatuSuro 01:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you have done on 'western tasmania' larger region article is great (as it is a start level article assessment wise) - but I would think in most of the stubs - just a link would suffice - what do you think? SatuSuro 01:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just scrolling down your talk page to get to this - can't help but point to [13] I am in the process of starting the big sort on his papers...sigh SatuSuro 01:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to do the same in each instance of Whitham I found. For me up here in the northern hemisphere, it took a while to find the 3 different editions. So, until someone is trying for FA status on the article and they're worried about how much space the citations are taking up, I think it may be ok to list all 3 editions everywhere. I prefer just linking the author's name to the Charles Whitham article, rather than including a separate line of text in the reference section saying something like 'see also Charles Whitham.' The hyperlink is a self explanatory "see also." I think I may call it a day ... Chat later! Keesiewonder talk 01:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk archives

Hi KW. Did you know about {{Talkarchive}}? It can be added at the head of each archive page. That gives a banner to warn people about adding new comments! (example at User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive5. I'm intrigued by the idea of archiving by topic, but wouldn't have the patience to keep sorting things.

Talking about ISBNs has been somewhat broken up lately (across different Talk pages) but I don't see an easy way to centralize it. EdJohnston 15:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EdJ! I didn't know about Talkarchive! So, I'll implement that this evening. (i.e. I'm at work now and shouldn't be in here!) It is a bit tedious to sort talk by topic, but if I keep it to the "topics" I now have, I think I'll be ok. Could we perhaps just discuss our ISBN stuff at Category_talk:Articles_with_invalid_ISBNs? I haven't posted there since I've been working primarily off of the old list that is almost done. Also, I don't find the need to post a message to say what I've done since it is obvious to me by looking at the category what needs doing. All styles work ... :-) ... Keesiewonder 16:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther

I've reverted myself (I think) and left a note on the talk page apologizing and explaining what I was trying to do. Sorry. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Concord

It should not have been moved. I reverted it. --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Harassment

Keesie, could you possibly find something more useful to do with your time than stalking me and obsessing over me on Wikipedia? Please read the WP:Harassment guideline and follow it. I'm growing increasingly concerned with you and your strange obsession with me. It is embarrassing for you. Please stop. Justas Jonas 13:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Keesiewonder&oldid=102035793"