User talk:Art LaPella/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Computer logic[edit]

I would think your interests in risk assessment and computers would make you a little more concerned about what you can do to to convince a computer within the limitations of it's boolean logic, binomial math thinking processes. I like computers and I'm sure you do too. And if you'll stick with their logic you will run into find the essential problems in human ideas much faster than by the human rationalization concept effort process. Maybe what we need is more programs to tell the PC how to properly evaluate the risk/gain relationship of decisions that are not boolean logic perfect. That's done in reliability analysis programs. But I dont know how it would satisfy your demand for corroborating references in order to have an idea considered. And I wish that somebody would develop a program that would give a PC a personality to go along with it's capabilities. (Say like that of DR. Isaac Asimov) So that we could continue to benefit from certain unique circumstances of skill in analysis and discussion. WFPMWFPM (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Artificial intelligence is a serious business with applications like voice recognition, and I've experimented with it a little when I was younger. Also, my stock program includes a technique borrowed from artificial intelligence. Someday perhaps we will let something like Data (Star Trek) decide if there was really a Big Bang. But for now, we depend on humans. I am personally less convinced about the Big Bang than the article is (although I don't pretend to understand it in so much detail), but Wikipedia has chosen to report the opinions of leading scientists, not me. That is, the article should say something like "Stephen Hawking thinks ... " rather than "Art LaPella (who's he?) thinks ... " Art LaPella (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

==I agree. But lets face the problem as the computer does. We've got a Tautology here. So where shouled we go. Well, something exists, so what is it. We say it is mass, which is partially collected form of energy. Well how can it exist in the first place? We dont have to deal with that. The question is as to what is going on now and in the future. And the logic of the chronological processes with masses in a gravitationally powered system is that you stsrt with mass and potential energy of accumulation, (which implies an initial stasis of cohering forces) and then a movement in the direction of any concentration. If you have a diffuse mass you can say with confidence that sooner or later it will concentrate. And the question only whether or not all of it will concentrate due to irregularities in distribution. But we're getting lost in the details without even bothering to define the problem.WFPMWFPM (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I defined the problem as writing the article according to Wikipedia policy, which is to report the opinions of scientists, not ourselves. I think your previous paragraph agrees with that goal, but then proceeds to ignore it by arguing what we should think – which I guess is OK as long as it doesn't determine how we write the Big Bang article, the purpose of Talk:Big Bang. I think you're arguing that if there was a Big Bang, then should matter be as concentrated as it is today into stars, planets, galaxies and galaxy clusters, or should Big Bang theory predict a higher or a lower concentration? I don't know, but you know what my broken record answer is going to be: do leading scientists think the concentration is too high or too low? Art LaPella (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

==No my problem is that you're restricting my ability to deal with the fundamental question by assuming and piling on the pro assumptions and not respecting my arguments and/or opinions which I am supposed to do in the talk section. Thus I have to spend all my time finding faults in something rather than improving an alternative (plus additional corrobarating requirements). That's why I like computer logic, because it wouldn't allow you to do that. We'd stop at the Tautology. And as Plato said, it's better to know that you dont know because then you have a possibility of finding the real answer. WFPMWFPM (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC) ==And my answer to the concentration problem is "Who Cares!" If Nature is capable of creating a universe and then decides to reaccumulate it, I have absolutely no doubt that it has the capability to do that. WFPMWFPM (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC) ==The way I understand it is that Stephen Hawkins thinks that the matter of the universe will be accumulated into island black holes, who then slowly evaporate. So then where are we? WFPMWFPM (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean that I'm restricting you with the Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies. If so, those rules enjoy a solid consensus at Wikipedia, whether I'm here to tell you or not. Is that what you mean? "improving an alternative (plus additional corroborating requirements)" sounds almost OK – a more precise statement would be that the alternative IS the corroboration – we present leading scientific opinions, including the alternative opinions, but not our own opinions. Alternative opinions in the article are few but they do exist, theoretically because leading scientists seldom share the alternative opinions. If the Big Bang could be computed on a computer, or better yet on a calculator, then we wouldn't need expert opinions; we would use our own calculators. But Wikipedia has few articles that can be so calculated. Even the factorial article isn't all calculation; there's plenty of room to argue what facts to include, although I didn't notice any controversial claims in the article. Knowing that you don't know is indeed desirable; isn't that why Wikipedia relies on experts instead of us?
The answer to "where are we" may be at Ultimate fate of the universe#Life in a mortal universe. Art LaPella (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

==Yes I appreciate your editing and subject matter control problems. But we're not here to generate content for a periodic newspaper, but rather a dynamic and hopefully up to date information source for considered important subject matters. And that involves exploring fundamentals and related data. In the Big Bang I dont have much of a concept. But I have pictures and information related to the Whirlpool Galaxy that has to fit into the concept framework, and there I see Mass being accumulated and radiation energy and presumably kinetic energy containing mass coming out as the result of an energy conversion process. And behind that I see a "singularity" just waiting to gobble up practically "the whole thing". So I have a concept of a 3 phase reaccumulation process, which I'm sure you'd call very ad hoc and unscientific and wouldn't want to put into Wiki because I haven't spent But a lot of effort trying to get it adequately accepted to meet your standards of notability. But you are the people trying to generate and "disambigulate" ideas about everything, Including the parceling of it out into multitudes of articles before you actually get it figured out. And in doing so you must know that you're just adding to the confusion in areas of uncertancy. And particularly if you're not really interested in the subject matter. WFPMWFPM (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC) But then maybe your method is a successfull idea. Then we can hope that instead of having some pretty reasonable ideas about a limited group of subject matters that we have rigorously examined to the best of our ability we will wind up being in a stste of confusion about everything. And now I Must apologize for being silly and say I appreciate your efforts to work with and accomodate me.WFPMWFPM (talk) 01:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If phrases like "dynamic and hopefully up to date information source for considered important subject matters" are intended to debate against WP:V and WP:OR (abbreviations of the 2 policies I cited before), then I assure you Wikipedia considers those policies non-negotiable. If you really want to try to change those policies, the right place is on those policies' talk pages, Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and Wikipedia talk:No original research. But no way can I imagine one new person walking in and overturning something that basic. An article like Big Bang has a continuous parade of people who want us to announce their theories, and we have long since overcome any hope that one of them has the Answer to Everything. Maybe they do, but organized science is much better equipped to investigate that than we are. Yes, ignoring uncited opinions could possibly "add to confusion in areas of uncertainty", but printing them all like a blog would give us a lot more confusion. So even if I rewrote the article to say that WFPM has discovered the Truth in the Whirlpool Galaxy and the rest of this article is wrong, I assure you it would be reverted, and if we didn't back off we would both be shown the door. Unless of course, it says "According to Journal of Astronomy volume 6 page 653 ... " Art LaPella (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

==Gee I cant even imagine how I came up with that phrase. Desparation I guess. But I didn't say that we dont have a universe to think about and that relative information isnt important. After all, as you say, information about the Physical properties of things is serious business. But sometimes people do get inspired and have good ideas. In Richard Rhodes' book "The making of the Atomic bomb" he describes how Neils Bohr suddenly understood the difference between the nuclear instability properties of Uranium as compared to those of Thorium (page 284), which then got them started on the successful right track. And I'm on your side in this hardly understandable knowledge proliferation business. So keep up the good work. Regards. WFPMWFPM (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that means we understand each other as well as we're going to. Art LaPella (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
= Sorry about putting my input into wrong page and appreciate your moving it. I just cant seem to keep my pages straight. But I think it explains the "space expansion" discussion in the article. .WFPMWFPM (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I just explained my objections at Talk:Big Bang#Moved from article. Art LaPella (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Fine But the figure also shows, and thus implies that the real physical universe started at T=zero. It just took a while before it (the expansion rate curve) started to tilt up. And the article in EB is almost 30 years old. In my Cosmology bible, the 1989 "Pictorial Atlas of the Universe" by Kevin Krisciunas and Bill Yenne, (Mallard Press), The diameter of the universe is estimated at less than 5000MPC. Now were at 30,000MPC. So it's hard to keep track of these things. WFPMWFPM (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC). WFPMWFPM (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't explain why the universe is said to be 30,000MPC not 5000MPC, but Talk:Big Bang is full of cosmologists who specialize in such questions. Are you proposing a change to the article, and do you have Wikipedia:Reliable sources for that change? Art LaPella (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
=I can see your point. So how do I get the discussion in the referenced book into the article. I'm not used to being a source of information or reference material. That's for "scientists" and not Engineers, and I can see it's a job for a higher "calling" than I have. But you've let me contribute the information in the talk section and I thank you for that. WFPMWFPM (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a scientist either. When I try to research citations on the Internet, I usually run into a website that wants my non-existent institution to pay big bucks for a subscription before I can read enough to find out if it's relevant. I think you're supposed to find citations at an academic library, like the one 25 miles north of my home here. Your referenced book itself is a source, but the Wikipedia:Reliable sources article says: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field." Your source would clearly qualify as "outdated". To get around that obstacle, I would have to understand what point you're making. The universe was once thought to be 5000 MPC across, but the current opinion has changed. So? Are you just documenting a detail of the history of the theory? Art LaPella (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

== No1 No! I'm just trying to "define the problem" By understanding what the proposed concept is, and the EB chart explains it pretty well. It's a Cartesian coordinate plot ot an absolute time value t versus the "expansion rate" of the universe. The t is continuous, and starts at zerozero and then goes up and then flattens out and then starts an increasing curve going upward. Then at some present time P the expansion value and the tangent (slope) value is determined and the tangent line is extrapolated back to the abcissa line which is proposed as the point on t where the real universe began. Thus the age of the universe (T) is less than the absolute time value t It and the present expansion rate can be increasing or decreasing or whatever. But ai least I understand the concept. The chart is called the "Lemaitre model" chart, and there is also 2 other charts on the SR model and another model. It says that this concept was developedv as part of an effort to get the conceived age of the universe to be older than the 5x E9 year age of the earth and they got it to 10-20x E9 years. WFPMWFPM (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't "understand the concept". If "EB" means "Encyclopedia Britannica", I have a 1963 version that doesn't even have a Big Bang article. "age of the universe (T)" sounds the same as "absolute time value t", but since you're talking about tangent lines, I assume you're trying to correct the age of the universe by making assumptions about different expansion rates in the past. I assume Newton's laws aren't enough to determine expansion rate change (otherwise the expansion couldn't be accelerating), so I have no idea what expansion rate assumptions should be used.

You summarized this as defining the problem. Does that mean defining the problem with the Big Bang theory, and does that mean I should therefore reject the Big Bang? The ideal Wikipedian would write the same Big Bang article whether he personally believes the Big Bang or not. So that sounds as if you need explanation number kazillion and one of the No Original Research policy. Do you? If not, then defining the problem only makes sense if you are defining what a modern consensus of leading scientists (or at least a significant minority) considers to be a problem, and if you can quote leading scientists to prove it.

If you do need explanation number kazillion and one, here comes another major speech again: It doesn't matter if you can define the problem you have with the Big Bang. The purpose of Wikipedia is to report the opinions of leading scientists, not ours. And even if you found just the right words to make me drop my fishing nets and come, follow you, it wouldn't matter because I'm just the messenger. You may think of me as the enforcer after removing your edit from Big Bang, but that was atypical for me (for one thing, the signature, equals sign etc. was very unusual). As you meet other Wikipedians, they won't reexplain the same policy umpteen times. They will ignore you on the talk page, revert you in the article without explanation, and block you when they get tired of it. There are other Wikipedia:POV pushers, but the ones who survive here (including Wikipedia's usual 15-25 age range) usually do a better job of at least pretending to cooperate with Wikipedia's basic policies. Art LaPella (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC) I am of course sorry for disturbing you, but I'm an old Geezer with several careers behind me, and nothing to do but survive economically and read about science. And most of science is problem solving in scientific subject matter. And the recommended procedure Number 1 for problem solving is to define the problem. And I was trying to help with the subject matter in that respect. And of course I started out with misconceptions about the Big Bang theory, as do many of your 15-25 year old readers, so I thought the thing to do was to read up on the subject and pass any clarifying information on to whoever is in charge of the information. And like Socrates, I certainly dont consider myself to be in charge of the information. More like a coordinator. But I guess that's what you do. And I'm not an expert programmer with graphics capability to draw the charts I see in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (EB) so I tried to describe them. And so when you want contributions to talk sections to be technically and graphically correct you're asking a lot from me and the 15-25 year olds, who are supposedly reading in order to learn, rather than to pontificate. And you did right in manageing the article's organization which is your responsability. Because I like to read the organized information, and the question becomes what do I do when I disagree with it or maybe even find an error. Maybe I should question the credentials of whoever said the diameter of the universe is 30,000MPC, when it's only 14x10E9years old, and doesn't have near enough galaxies to occupy that volume of space. I dont know. And I hope you get someone in authority to find out soon enough so that I can read about it. WFPMWFPM (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)PS Please note that someone has now changed the Universe article's diameter estimate to 156 billion light years. WFPMWFPM (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Would you say that contributer No. 24.26.109.88 is a responsable authority on the subject? WFPMWFPM (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 24.26.109.88 is a good example of what I'm talking about. Here is his edit: [1] 24.26.109.88 doesn't give us any clue who he is, but it doesn't matter because he cited a source, "space.com", and told us how to find it. That is exactly how Wikipedia works. I don't know who said the diameter of the universe is 30,000MPC when it's only 14x10E9 years old, but I remember reading something like that on Wikipedia, so until proven otherwise I assume that is the consensus. If there is only one person saying that and his credentials are questionable, then sure, you should question his credentials. Art LaPella (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and although making the EB reference graphically correct might help me understand it, that isn't the point. For talk page purposes it would be easier to explain in words, and in the article you can't copy it because of its copyright, and anyway it's old enough to be relevant only for historical purposes. And I don't manage the article's organization. I correct spelling and grammar, and re-explaining basic policy is a similar detail – original research wouldn't survive in the article anyway with or without me. Art LaPella (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And I read the space com article, and it seems that while the world and visible parts of the universe have been piddling around and doing nothing much for 13 billion years, the space volume of the universe has, on average expanded at 6 times the speed of light (6x 13 billion= 78 billion). And of course we must be near the center so the diameter is 156 billion years. And there wasn't any energy differential involved in that process, because space inflation values dont count in physics. In the meantime the other references are stuck in the range of diameters of 30 t0 90 billion light years, and haven't caught up with the up to date concepts and reports in Wikipedia. WFPMWFPM (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If other references say 30 to 90 billion light years and space.com and Universe now say 156 billion, then that contradiction should be resolved. If it isn't resolved then Template:Contradict-other should be used. I usually let the scientists decide what is an adequate citation, and perhaps an edit summary (rather than a footnote) mentioning a popularized website isn't ideal. But in the context of overturning the scientific consensus altogether because you and an outdated encyclopedia say so (if that is indeed your objective), then space.com is a wonderful reference by comparison. Art LaPella (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that what I think has absolutely no significance as regarding the subject matter. And I dont know what significance the referred space com article has. But when it crops up in wikipedia as an authoritative statement it impacts on the credibility of wikipedia and editors are told to try to report the facts, and, of course, reputable opinions. All I have ever done, when it comes to science, is do build a set of real physical entities (models) that have some relationship to an important set of real physical entities (Atoms) and tried to bring that to science's attention. And I dont know how I got into this subject about the Big Bang and Universe inflation theories. Just trying to learn and understand, I Guess. WFPMWFPM (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If 156 billion is that bad, then you might produce the references saying 30 to 90 billion (I couldn't find them here) and change Universe linking to those references. But we really do need the references. Without them we could be arguing with 4th graders insisting the size of the universe is about 1000 miles. Art LaPella (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the Logarithmic Map of the Universe link leads to a Map of the Universe article where it is explained that the Hubble radius for redshift purposes is 4400 MPC And that the inflated universe's present status is presently 3.38 times that or 14,000+ MPC (with the future ultimate possible size being 250,000 MPC). It's called the Friedman Model. And I can only organize my contributing capabilities to be able to get in one set of ideas per session. WFPMWFPM (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I reported it here. Art LaPella (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

re: Did You Know Problem[edit]

Hi Art LaPella, I I have responded to your comment. I have never been involved in DYK before and you have educated me on how it works. I will be back there soon.--intraining Jack In 05:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You![edit]

Latin dictionary.jpg The TomStar81 Spelling Award
Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that Art LaPella has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page USS New Jersey (BB-62), and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll copy it to my user page. Art LaPella (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

re: Did You Know problem[edit]

Hello I believe I have fixed the problem and I have responded to your comment regarding my DYK submission for the article List of Mortal Kombat media. Thank you. Silver Sonic Shadow (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Johnes[edit]

Hi Art. Hope all is well for you in the beautiful PNW. Thanks for your help with Thomas Johnes! Take care, ∞☼Geaugagrrl(T)/(C) 03:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Art LaPella (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

tin(IV) fluoride[edit]

I was surprised when someone nominated this article for DYK- as I had never heard of DYK before! --Axiosaurus (talk) 08:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

My msitake -you are quite right- I have corrected the typos in the equations--Axiosaurus (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know question[edit]

Hi! Thank you for the prompt review of the DYK submission of Lars Andreas Oftedahl! I have substituted "reputated" with "renowned", both in the hook and in the article. Think "renowned" is slightly more close to the cited source than your suggested "well-known". PS. I have noticed your continuous and helpful work at the DYK pages. Keep up the good work! Cheers. Oceanh (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC).

Thank You[edit]

May I please thank for helping me out with Mirage of astronomical objects?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Art LaPella (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know question[edit]

Hey, thanks for the help with the hook for Jupiter and Thetis (Ingres); appreciated, its a skill that takes practice, and I'm not very practicised with DYK. Frankly, I'm not trilled with the hook for The Ghost of a Flea[2]. If you could tighten, it would be very much appreciated. Best. Ceoil sláinte 20:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I went with your suggested hook. Ceoil sláinte 05:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Todays Featured Article[edit]

Hi,

The current image of Delhi is foggy and unclear and does not show much. Can you please change the image of Delhi on the main page to one of the following:

Image-New Delhi Lotus.jpg
India gate .jpg

. These are icons of Delhi and a symbol of the city. Thanks Nikkul (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with images, copyrights and cascading protection, but I forwarded your request to WP:ERRORS. Art LaPella (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Blue Moon Rising DYK[edit]

Cheers for letting me know you'd had a look at my DYK. I've fixed the problem you commented.

Cabe6403 (TalkSign!) 07:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The ABC of Communism and DYK[edit]

I've changed the hook a bit. I hope it works now. Thanks for informing me, btw! Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 22:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you one more time[edit]

Hi, Art. I guess by now you rather tiered of correcting my errors. Thank you one more tome for helping me out with the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really, my main contribution to Wikipedia is correcting errors like that. Art LaPella (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Template for DYK notifications[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you've been active at T:TDYK, and I just wanted to let you know that I've been working on making a template for notifying users when there are issues that need to be addressed with their hooks (ie, when you've had to mark it with Symbol question.svg). The template is at {{DYKquestions}} if you want to take a look or try using it, and RyanCross started a discussion here to request comments about it. —Politizer talk/contribs 14:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I responded there. Art LaPella (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Richard Tylman COI notice[edit]

Greetings, You may recall participating in a Conflict of Interest notice concerning Richard Tylman earlier this year. I have presented evidence from this COI at a current Request for Arbitration. In doing so, I notified Gordonofcartoon whose name was mentioned in the evidence. It has been suggested by Poeticbent that I should have notified all participants… hence this notice. Kind regards, Victoriagirl (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what a long page! I think anything I could add would just make the page longer. Art LaPella (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I changed my mind, and I did make a short comment there. Art LaPella (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I won't add to the confusion by commenting there, but West or not, there are national cabals full stop. Try deleting one of these nonentities from Australian colonial history and see how rapidly a pro-keep posse turns up via Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
That link is dead, but I'll take your word for the pro-keep posse; it sounds plausible (although there probably should be an article for something mentioned in 30 other articles). But nobody's really equal. Art LaPella (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, should've explained better. It's the title of a book used as source for the whole walled garden. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the articles I checked are linked only from talk pages, each other, lists, and this wrong link. You're a deletionist and I'm a copyeditor. Art LaPella (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

List of people deported from the United States[edit]

So if I expand the main body text to over 1,500 chars, can I resubmit at some point for reconsideration at T:DYK? Cirt (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I don't usually check citations etc. (see the FAQ at the top of this page), but the objection was about length. 1500 bytes of main body text (that is, not part of the list) would satisfy that objection. It would have to be done within the so-called 5 day limit (as modified by "Unwritten" Rule D7). Art LaPella (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I will get on that. Cirt (talk) 07:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Congregation Beth Elohim[edit]

Thanks for doing that. How do you figure out that the longitude is in the street, not the building? Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

First, find the coordinates (latitude and longitude), in the upper right corner and also in the infobox. Next, go back to my uncorrected version if you want to see that it used to point to the street. Then, click the coordinates. Then, find the words "Google Maps" (other choices will work too). To the right of Google Maps, click "Labeled satellite". In the upper left corner of the picture are several symbols. Click the plus sign 3 times to zoom in. The arrow should now be pointing at the middle of the street by the temple (if "temple" is the right word). Similarly, my location is moved due east onto the building, so there can be no question which building is the temple. Art LaPella (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
What do you do from there, trial and error to find the exact spot? Jayjg (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
If you mean what do you do to correct the location for this temple, I believe I already fixed it, although we could use the process described below if you want the location centered on the dome or something.
If you mean how can you correct other latitudes and longitudes on other articles, yes, trial and error is part of the process. The process can be speeded up with arithmetic. A degree of latitude is about 25,000 miles/360 degrees or about 70 miles. A degree of longitude is less by a factor of about 0.7 depending on the latitude (actually the cosine of the latitude, but trial and error is easier than too much precision.) In this case I was moving about 100 feet, so that's about .7x100/(70x5280) degrees or about .0002 100/(0.7x(70x5280)) degrees or about .0004 degrees east. Some other locations are measured in minutes (1/60 of a degree) and seconds (1/60 of a minute).
This assumes you know which building on a satellite view matches the building in a Wikipedia article. To tell which building is which, use Google's "Street View" or Live Search's "Bird's Eye" if you're in the right neighborhood (this article provided an address, and Street View and Bird's Eye only work in dense urban areas). If you're more seriously lost, Wikimapia can be helpful. Wikimapia can also be used to determine a visible landmark's coordinates without trial and error. Art LaPella (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Current DYKs[edit]

No editors have been notified that they have DYKs for those currently on main page. Mjroots (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I reported it at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Current DYK's, although they aren't so current any more (10:09 is 2:09 AM in my time zone). Art LaPella (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: O'Neill y O'Kelly[edit]

Hi there, in answer to your question is that both Julio and Arturo used both their father's and mother's surnames as is custom in Hispanic culture. It is common in Hispanic culture to use both parents surnames and since they were Spanish subjects that is what they did. A good example is Ramon Power y Giralt. His father was Joaquín Power y Morgan who married Maria Josefa Giralt. When Ramon was born, he was inscribed as Ramon Power y Giralt. It is a little confusing, but that is the custom. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. Art LaPella (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ovid[edit]

Can you please check if comma is used appropriately in the current lead hook? --BorgQueen (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the first comma and not the second, although I couldn't cite a rule for it. The adverbial phrase doesn't fit any of the categories that always require commas. Art LaPella (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Fata Morgana (mirage)[edit]

Hi Art, May I please ask you, when and if you have a time, to correct my errors in Fata Morgana (mirage). Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's OK. I reverted everything I've done for the article to the way it used to be. I consider there no more Fata Morgana (mirage) article on Wikipedia, but at least grammar is correct. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Note that although Gunrun could have been more diplomatic, he admitted he doesn't know much about Fata Morgana. He criticized only the grammar (English obviously isn't your native language) and the informal style. Art LaPella (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Gunrun called the article " rubbish". English is not my native language, but I would not have ever used such a word about somebody else work. I removed all my changes. The article that is there now is wrong. The images do not show Fata Morgana, and the description of the phenomenon is incorrect. Well, I guess it is better than to have an article with errors in the grammar. The thing is that I know something (very little) about Fata Morgana, at least I saw the display few times. I wanted to share my knowledge with Wikipedia readers, but somehow I do not want to do it any more. Thank you, Art. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I commented at Talk:Fata Morgana (mirage)#Has anyone read this article recently?. Art LaPella (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Your unwritten rules are being discussed here. Your thoughts would be welcome. -- Suntag 17:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

You probably know what for :) —Politizer talk/contribs 08:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Art LaPella (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Your Unwritten Rule[edit]

Your Unwritten Rule A2 goes against Wikipedia guideline. As per definition ON Wikipedia and approved by Consensus: "Specifically, for stylistic purposes, readable prose excludes: External links, Further reading, References, Footnotes, See also, and similar sections; Table of contents, tables, list-like sections, and similar content; and markup, interwiki links, URLs and similar formatting" from here. This is the agreed definition by the community. IF you wish to pursue this further, take it up with the community. However, your rules remain invalid as long as they contradict determined definitions. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't just my Unwritten Rule. As G4 puts it: "These 'unwritten' rules are intended to describe the consensus, not to prescribe it." Please stop telling us what our own consensus says, until you understand us a lot better. The consensus has been (for instance) to exclude block quotes from article size, since before I wrote down the Unwritten Rules; that's why they are called Unwritten Rules. No Did You Know regular has objected to A2 in months. Gatoclass, for instance, has just made a major change to the Unwritten Rules without changing or objecting to A2.
You have quoted how the community defines "readable prose" in the "Article size" article. I have no objection to that article, and therefore I have no need to take that article up with the community. But that isn't how we define "prose only" for the Did You Know article size rule. Just because we used the same word "prose" that another article uses, doesn't mean we need to change our rule to fit that definition, any more than the existence of other people named Art proves that I'm somebody else. This dictionary definition of "prose" is less specific than either Wikipedia definition, but it's routine to use everyday words to have different specialized meanings in different situations. For instance, we don't need anyone's permission to use the word "mouse" to describe a computer part, even though it doesn't have fur and a tail. Art LaPella (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
As Gatoclass et all have made it clear now, and many have in the past, the community doesn't accept your unwritten rules. Why do you keep making claims to the contrary? There is only one definition of what readable prose is on Wikipedia. There isn't your definition and Wikipedia's. There is one. To change that requires changing an important guideline that is connected to GA, FAC, and MoS. You cannot do that. Only the community can do that, and your persistance to the contrary is troubling. If you honestly believe that your side is correct, why have you not taken it up to Village Pump? The fact that you haven't actually had community involvement in the matter only verifies this. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I see you have objected to the plans of Gatoclass et al (including me) to merge the unwritten rules into the written rules. So you are already aware that they accept specific rules such as A2, or they would be deleting it not merging it. The Did You Know (not Article size) consensus is 1500 characters excluding things like block quotes, and you're the only one who wants to change it. If you consider my position to be arrogant, feel free to turn me in to the Village Pump, or better yet, to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and spare me the trouble of reporting this myself. Art LaPella (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Really? Gatoclass? You mean the individual who said: "I'm inclined to agree with Jay, I think the front end of DYK is probably daunting enough for noobs already without the "unwritten rules" collated by Art. Gatoclass (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)".
Sure seems like he doesn't accept your merge proposal. I'm not the one who wants to change anything. Block quotes have always counted as readable prose. Thats part of WP:SIZE. 100% of my articles contain block quotes and not once, before Politizer tried dominating DYK, has anyone ever objected. Now you are attempting to rewrite standard policies and change definitions to suit him? At least do it without misquoting admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, it clearly says "(ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, tables etc.)" which is a directly from WP:SIZE: "readable prose excludes: External links, Further reading, References, Footnotes, See also, and similar sections; Table of contents, tables, list-like sections, and similar content; and markup, interwiki links, URLs and similar formatting." It is impossible to claim otherwise, and your persistence is directly contradictory to the English language. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
For the benefit of administrators who may be reviewing this nonsense in the future: Gatoclass did say that, but he meant that he was objecting to merging the 3 sets of rules. Like all Did You Know regulars, Gatoclass takes the Unwritten Rules for granted, as you can tell from his revision to those rules. This can also be confirmed by reviewing the history of Template talk:Did you know, which has frequently mentioned the Unwritten Rules for months without questioning their authority. Art LaPella (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
"did say that, but he meant " Really? So, now you can declare what people meant to say, even though they clearly contradict you? Just like you can make up your own rules without going to Village Pump and getting a consensus of more than five people? Wow. That is really scary. And mentioning the unwritten rules is completely different than accepting them as rules. There are pages connected to various guidelines that are personal philosophies and views that are not guidelines nor official because Consensus was never put together to adopt them as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and also "Unofficial criteria: LaPella's unwritten rules" from the top of Template talk:Did you know. Perhaps you haven't noticed that, but Did You Know regulars are aware of that link although "unofficial" understates the status. They are routinely quoted through the rest of the page, and nobody else says things like "Those are only unofficial". Art LaPella (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Personal essays are not policies or guidelines, nor are they enforceable in any way. There are 9 essays linked to in WP:CIVIL, but none of them are enforceable. What you seem unable to acknowledge is that your idea is not accepted by the community, and the only way for it to be accepted is for it to go to the community. Village Pump Proposals is the place for that. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Come to think of it, I don't approve hooks or move them to Next Update anyway, so arguing with me is like shooting the messenger. If (contrary to fact) the Unwritten Rules are so unenforceable and unaccepted, (imaginary) Did You Know regulars who don't accept those Rules will approve your hook and move it to Next Update, and I don't matter. Art LaPella (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
This isn't about hooks. This is about rule changes. I opposed you two times before on this issue, and consensus did not go to say that the unwritten rules were the rules. In order to change that, it seems that people are trying to merge the two together to make it impossible to deny your rules. This is against Consensus and other standards, and is a very bad practice. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I looked at making a brief announcement at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), just to please you, but there seems to be no way to avoid getting a lot of official-looking attention. Did You Know regulars are the Did You Know consensus, and you are the only opponent. Art LaPella (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
John did not seem to agree. Neither did Gato. Plus, they are not the only regulars. There are tons of people who didn't mention a thing. Furthermore, not everyone who uses DYK knows what is being said on the talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
So report my evildoing and get it over with. Be sure to tell them that nobody but me supports the Unwritten Rules, and be sure to tell them that the same nobodies support the Unwritten Rules so much, they are nefariously including them in the written rules without your consent. Art LaPella (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
"So report my evildoing and get it over with." Evil doing? You haven't done anything yet. If the rules get merge, then you can be reported, or the issue would be taken to one of the VP boards for community involvement. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Sure I have. I've been enforcing the unwritten rules nobody agrees with for months. No one has dared resist my iron grip until you, their champion, appeared. Even other Did You Know regulars have long cited and obeyed my decrees, and refused to approve hooks that violate them, so great is their fear of my tyranny. Well, at least my tyranny over nitpicking; I never did understand the subjective part of Did You Know very well. Art LaPella (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
"I've been enforcing" You can't actually enforce them. You can not approve of things. But that doesn't mean others have. Plus, most of my hooks and pages were approved with a large amount of quoting and the rest, so they never actually qualified for anything according to your standards. Sure looks like you don't have any actual control. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
DYK recognizes new (or substantially expanded) articles of a certain minimum size, and the content must be new. Block quotes from elsewhere are not original content, and therefore are being excluded from the count for purposes of DYK. Art LaPella is doing no more than describing consensus and common practice, and does not deserve this criticism. He is one of the folks who keeps this project going. Kablammo (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:OR. No content on Wikipedia is "original". WP:SIZE, prose is defined as textual information that is in the body, including quotations and block quotes. Adding block quotes to the encyclopedia, along with other quotes, has been accepted in thousands of DYK, especially in all of my own. None of what you have stated matches Consensus, nor does it match either the spirit or letter of DYK. Plot summaries are not "original" either, and nothing on this encyclopedia is. Its all taken from somewhere, and it doesn't matter if its direct text or not. What matters is that it falls under standard rules. This does. Art's interpretation doesn't. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
OR, I respectfully disagree. "The DYK section gives publicity to newly created or expanded Wikipedia articles, as a way of thanking the editors who create new content." "New content" in my view does not include block quotes from elsewhere. (It is also my view that it should not include PD text from elsewhere, nor paraphrased content, but should in fact be the editor's own prose, but that is another issue.) There may be nothing new under the sun, but there are new ways of arranging and expressing it, and that is what DYK recognizes. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
"New content" New content means new to the encyclopedia and not plagarized. It is not plagarism to quote someone else and cite. Furthermore, I know from publishing that this is based on copyrighting principles - quoting someone else, putting it into a new context, and not using more than fair use IS new content and is rightfully under your copyright. PD pictures are not new, but if you position them in a certain way and add caption, then no one can take your whole item. The whole is yours. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Numbering systems and language[edit]

  • Scripture? In a RfA? (*You must not have visited my user page.*) I am quite pleased to hear that option B wasn’t rhetorical. Well then, since we are off-topic…

    As for scripture, I am a Pastafarian myself, and believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He created the universe with His noodley appendages. I believe He uses the base-16 numbering system (He has 16 noodley appendages, which makes base-16 imminently sensible for Him). Note that when He refers to the value 15, unless one is willing to transcribe 15 as “F” in English (or “נ” in Hebrew), any numeric value He (the Flying Spaghetti Monster) uses to communicate His thoughts, will not only convert to the language of the transcriber, but will also always seem to convert to the base-10 numbering system that is part of that language. It is just an illusion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster uses base-10 math; an artifact of converting to English. The Sumerians used the sexagesimal numbering system so His number 15 in Babylonian would appear like this to them. A splendid scientific test for what numbering system He *really* uses (setting aside the transcribed illusions of what He communicates in), is to calculate whether notable events tend to happen on nice, round numbers in various numbering systems.

    And yes, if a serpent was held for a thousand years, that too would be *evidence* for this. But “thousand” could be a generalization; it could have originated from God-talk for something like “millennia” (but not exactly). But ending the world on a nice, exquisitely precise, round number like the first day of year-2000, would indeed have signaled not only that God existed (totally bursting my belief bubble for a second or two), but also that He really and truly uses the base-10 numbering system.

    Thank you for your post; I had never pondered this numbering system issue in such depth before. A meatball is a terrible thing to waste.©™® That is Revelation 1 in my book. Greg L (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You must not have visited my user page either. When confronting a fundamentalist or any other -ist, it is rational to argue from his own assumptions (which I do not share) unless you explicitly challenge them. Similarly, it is difficult to arrive at a rational evaluation of ScienceApologist when we have to pretend he is cooperating. To comply with my own second sentence above, I would support that opinion with quotes from Pastafarian scripture (peace and blessings be upon Him), but alas, I have never attended a Pastafarian seminary. At least not at a divinely ordained seminary at which only Kraft parmesan cheese is served. Art LaPella (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Touché. I see it there: you lost your faith. That explains your familiarity with scripture. Pleased to make your acquaintance. Greg L (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

    P.S. I weep at the thought of all the cans of Beefaroni I have cut open and eaten. For they are His children. Greg L (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Italics[edit]

Could you comment here? Thanks. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Art LaPella (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated DYK template[edit]

Hi, I'd just like to let you know what the template {{DYKsug}} was just updated with a new feature: now, for all DYK nominations that include only one article, it auto-generates the credit templates ({{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}}), which the person moving the hook to Next may simply cut and past from T:TDYK directly into next. This only happens with single-article nominations; if the nomination has more than one article, there will be a message in the template saying "Credits must be done manually by the person moving this nomination to Next" or something like that. It will probably be a few days before you start seeing the auto-generated credit templates, since the template was only just updated and only the new nominations will reflect it; the first several times you see auto-generated credit templates, you may want to double-check the nom as you are promoting it, just to make sure the credits are correct.

There have been some other minor changes—mainly, now if a DYK nominator lists himself as both "creator/expander" and "nominator," the "nominator" field ends up blank (so that what gets displayed is "Created by User, self nom" rather than "Created by User, nominated by User." Also, the fields, |collaborator=, |collaborator2=, and |collaborator3= have been replaced with the more intuitive |creator2=, |creator3=, and |creator4=.

Please let me know if you experience any problems with the new template. —Politizer talk/contribs 15:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't directly use the template at all, because I do proofreading, not nominating or moving to next update. But I think there are fields for comments and ALTs and perhaps I should be using those. Art LaPella (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the way you're editing now was fine; I just sent this mass message out to everyone who is very active, and I figured even if you're not going to use the template I should at least let you know about the changes so you don't get surprised if things start looking different. You don't have to worry a bout using the comment or ALT fields in the template, because those are mainly intended for the nominators, to leave comments explaining details about the nom that can't be expressed by the template (for example, if there are multiple articles and different people were involved with each article in different ways, or if the nominator wants to specify when the article was moved to mainspace) or to suggest multiple hooks at once when they nominate. For the stuff that you do, you probably don't need to ever touch the template if you don't want to. —Politizer talk/contribs 18:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

9-article DKY hook[edit]

I have submitted an ALTERNATE hook for the 9-article DKY. I believe the wording now is such it closer relates to the articles involved. As long as the "200 character" rule could be a little flexible since there are so many articles involved, I believe this should be somehting closer to what might satisfy everyone. Do you think this would work? --Doug Coldwell talk 13:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't directly approve hooks, I think they (meaning others besides Ottava Rima) will prefer the alternate hook. The 200 character rule is indeed "flexible" for multiple hooks, as described by "Unwritten" Rule C3. Art LaPella (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the 9-article hook came up this morning! Thanks for your inputs. --Doug Coldwell talk 13:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Italics, again.[edit]

Could you comment on T:TDYK#Suanmeitang. Thanks a lot. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. You must have read those rules more than I have. Note that we don't know whether to call you "he" or "she" because you often write about the Orient and might therefore be unaware what a queen is. Art LaPella (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK late December 2008[edit]

I just wanted to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia and your work on DYK. There isn't always a huge amount of glory in reviewing, rewriting, discussing and promoting the work of others. But I apprecaite your efforts and hope you have a happy end of 2008 and a great start to 2009. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. Please let me know when the infamous comma comes up for a vote. I'm willing to use my whole sock drawer to vote it down! ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I have reported this to Talk:Comma, as this issue belongs there or at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Art LaPella (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK comment[edit]

Hello Art. I'm attempting to post a comment at the 'Translations as "new" content' section on WT:DYK but after clicking save I got a connectivity error, and now my browser's refusing to load any very long pages so I can't get there to re-post it. If you're still about would you mind posting it there for me? I see there's been some activity since I first started writing it so it may be somewhat irrelevant now, but I'm loath to just discard it altogether. Many thanks!

Here's the comment:

There seem to be three issues here: machine translation; reliability of translated pages; and whether they count as 'new enough' for DYK.
The first is machine translation. Machine translation isn't good enough for articles (see here, or just try reading something that's gone through a machine and back!) so DYK certainly shouldn't have to consider accepting them. This seems clear-cut.
The second issue is the reliability of translated articles. Now, I have no experience with Wikipedia:Translation and couldn't see anything on this there, but my own feeling is that it'd be extremely bad practice to translate an article without checking that the sources actually back up what they claim to. If people take that precaution then a translated article will be no worse than an original one: every fact has been translated and checked against the source, so I don't see a problem. Now maybe the consensus on translating things differs from my opinion, and if so DYK should follow WP-wide rules - but either way it doesn't seem to me that DYK should be making this decision. Either translations are good enough to be articles (and therefore DYKs) or they aren't.
Of course there's the side issue of people translating a page and claiming to have checked all the sources when they simply haven't, but that's not much different from other lies people can tell about articles (plagiarism or inaccurate summaries of source contents). I think previous discussion on this page has shown many times that DYK's position on that sort of thing is that we look out for it where possible and take a zero-tolerance policy where we find it, but that it's simply not effective to institute broad rules to prevent classes of article likely to suffer from such behaviour.
The third issue is whether material new to the English wiki but not Wikipedia as a whole counts as new enough for DYK. The simplest solution would be to allow it since then we won't have to go checking whether an article looks like it's been translated, and trying to work out how much things have been expanded when someone translates an article and immediately expands it five-fold (I can picture people complaining that the language they translated from has longer words and so requiring five-fold character expansion is unfair... then if we compare English character counts, which part of the expanded article corresponds to the old version?). However, people may feel that counting such material as 'new' is cheating. I have no strong opinion either way (so I suppose I'd default to allowing it as it's simpler for the reason above) but am open to being swayed. Olaf Davis | Talk 20:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 Done Art LaPella (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks Art! I seem to be up and running again. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK - First Baptist Church and Gillfield Baptist Church[edit]

Thanks for your notice. I'll try to work on those more; was trying to get in the DYK before it got too late.--Parkwells (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Kamianets-Podilskyi Castle[edit]

Could you please look through the history and the move log for this page and try to figure out what exactly has gone on with it? The edit summary from the diff you provided suggest a pagemove from usetspace to mainspace on Dec 30 or Dec 31 (in which case the article would indeed be DYK-eligible, as you noted). However, when looking at the move logs for the relevant pages (the article itself and DDima's sandbox), both move logs appear to be empty. There is a record of a manual creation of a redirect from the sandbox to mainspace on Dec 31[3], but nothing else. I am really confused and don't understand what is going on. If the article has been moved, using a pagemove, from userspace to mainspace (on Dec 30 or Dec 31), there should be a record of it in a move log somewhere. But I don't see anything like that. To all appearances, it looks like the article has existed in mainspace since Feb 2008[4]. Nsk92 (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

As I just explained at Template talk:Did you know (correcting my previous post), I believe this is the move log, which you can find by clicking "View logs for this page" at the top of the user page's history page, and it does show the move. Therefore, the history of the mainspace article is really the history of the user space article. Art LaPella (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think you are right. I was looking for the record of this move by clicking on "View logs for this page" in the history page of the article itself, but for some reason the move does not show up there[5]. However, it does show in the log section for the Sandbox page, as you pointed out, so it seems that everything is Ok with the date of the article after all and that it was created in mainspace on Dec 31, 2008. Nsk92 (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't remember ever checking the "to" page's log to confirm a move, but I have checked this Did You Know situation a few times by checking the "from" page's log. So a good guess is that the move is logged only at the "from" page and not the "to" page. Art LaPella (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me[edit]

How is this evidence that my "latest" mentorship (by the way, I've never had a mentor before) is not working? Have you looked closely at the history between me and Gandalf? Do you know what it is?

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I may be wrong about Jehochman's mentorship (although that's how I remember it). Other than what I linked, I looked over Gandalf's contributions and found he was mainly interested in mathematics, with no unusual interest in pseudoscience; I didn't know you encountered him before. If he is some evildoer, you certainly didn't make that case for me on his talk page, and I wish you had attacked him for something he did, not something he didn't do. Art LaPella (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman was never my mentor. He asked AGK to be my mentor, and I agreed, but AGK decided he couldn't. Gandalf has been pretty relentless at Wikipedia talk:Scientific standards and WT:MAINSTREAM among other places. I pointed out to him how it felt to be on the other end. In the last couple of days things have improved. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
That matches what Jehochman said here but not here and here. If "Gandalf has been pretty relentless" means wikistalking and personal attacks, I wish you had provided diffs or similar indications of what you meant after Gandalf denied any knowledge of what you were talking about. If "relentless" doesn't mean wikistalking and personal attacks, then please accuse him of being "relentless" (whatever that means), not wikistalking and personal attacks. Art LaPella (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I find the "provide diffs" culture at Wikipedia to be a tad ridiculous. Sure, I could go through and waste 15 minutes collecting my evidence, but I'm not in the mood for formal dispute resolution and I just wanted to let him know that he was getting a bit too close for comfort. I showed you the locations that are most concerning for me. His contributions indicated a high proportion of edits that felt directly related to me at the time and he has engaged in personal attacks of me at the locations I showed you. As to your evidence that Jehochman was ever my "mentor", you're just going to have to believe me. One cannot have a mentor if one doesn't agree to it and I never agreed to Jehochman mentoring me. I did agree to him helping me, which he did for a few hours one day before he turned rogue, but I did not want him as a "mentor" because I don't have enough respect for him. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
You have a point about diffs culture, which is why I said "diffs or similar indications of what you meant". You gave me a better explanation than you gave Gandalf. However, 2 articles isn't much evidence of wikistalking considering that Gandalf listed articles and commented on each. Gandalf had some harsh words for you in those articles, but that doesn't do anything to support the accusation that "Some of your comments at those AfDs are needlessly personal" (emphasis added). Perhaps you meant to say that Scientific standards and MAINSTREAM prove Gandalf is so awful that it's OK to accuse him of anything, whether he did it or not. But if that's what you mean, that argument is wearing thin with no obvious pseudoscientific nonsense in sight. Oh, and Jehochman considered himself your mentor and you considered him your helper. That sounds like potato patawto. Art LaPella (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The AfDs felt very personal to me. I think you should get the entire context before passing judgment on me. As you very well know, context is usually difficult to determine when I'm involved because of the peculiar tendency of people who oppose me to follow me to various other unrelated articles. This is why I remarked that as long as Gandalf's activities stayed as they had been staying (and they have) there would be no problem. I may be particularly sensitive to these things, but it is important that I let people know my feelings. Civility works, in part, by letting others know how you feel. As for Jehochman, I accepted his help which and he provided it for less than 24 hours. If that is a mentorship arrangement, I frankly would be surprised. A mentorship is usually based on trust: trust you cannot gain over a 24 hour period between when a person offers you their help and when a person utterly condemns you. Yes, I find Jehochman to be an editor who acts as a political operative rather than a good faith editor/administrator. He was never my mentor because I have a hard time accepting his proposal in light of the evidence that he has created since then. I hope you understand that a mentorship must be two-ways in order for it to be true. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
This isn't about civility at all: perhaps you've seen the civility section of User:Art LaPella/Devil's Dictionary of Wikipedia Policy. It's about whether your charges against Gandalf were true. Davkal just emailed me a long list of diffs he hopes I will use against you, but in those diffs you were saying things that sound true or at least plausible. Neither of you seem to think that distinction matters. OK, so the AfDs felt personal to you. Does that mean Gandalf's AfD comments were personal attacks? Which ones? He listed them all for us, and that makes it your move. Specify which quote was a personal attack, or retract the accusation. Isn't that your own rationalistic philosophy? And if you're rational enough to understand the ΛCDM model, then how come I have to explain that to you? Art LaPella (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of moving on, I have communicated to a third-party what my interpretations were and why I interpreted them that way. You can read about which AfD comments felt like personal attacks at User talk:Gandalf61.

I guess I just see the situation much differently than you. What I see is an editor asking another editor to consider whether their actions are vindictive or not and to perhaps provide some breathing room. Was it phrased in the best Wikipedia-way possible? Perhaps not, but then I've never been very good at phrasing such things as you may recall.

You have a different view of appropriate processes than do I, you've always been willing to take time to carefully evaluate the particular turns-of-phrase and word choices of the editors here. It's that attention to wording that makes you such a good copy-editor. Not everyone has that same commitment. I rarely find parsing interactions on-line to be of anyone's benefit. The chance for people to be misunderstood or misinterpreted is simply too great and what normally happens is an extended discussion about the definition of the word "is".

As for "truth" and "plausibility", I have to say that the truth or plausibility about how someone's written words on-line make someone else feel is left to the eye-of-the-beholder. Durova rightly points out on Gandalf61's talk page that this approach may be subject to WP:GAME issues, but I have no other way to understand how civility functions in light of my year-long tutorial. Assuming good faith, I think that when people make accusations that I'm being uncivil that those accusations are true whether I can understand them or not. I do not ask people to understand why I think something is uncivil. I only ask them to respect that this is how an event made me feel. This acknowledgment is the first step in moving forward in a civil society. If that basic step cannot be taken, then there is no point in going any further. Failing to acknowledge that someone feels a certain way is absolutely an assumption of bad faith. I acknowledge that Gandalf felt upset by my post. However, he has yet to acknowledge that I felt hounded by him. In fact, he's only become more strident as I've tried to make it clear that it was how I felt. His last post to my talkpage continues to indicate that he approaches this situation from a standpoint of being the only wronged party in the situation. So there is no chance for us to be able to come to terms with civil interaction.

What's to be done? Well, my feeling at this point is that the entire thing has gone on too long. Gandalf wants me to apologize for telling him how I felt. Or maybe he wants me to apologize for phrasing it inappropriately. However, he's also written on my talkpage that he doesn't want to talk about it any longer, and seemed fit preemptively dismiss any attempts I might make in that regard (it "might mitigate"). Okay. That's fine with me. Water under the bridge, etc. etc.

What I didn't appreciate is you stepping in as a third party trying to make some statement about the functionality of a fourth party's new relationship with a first party as an interpretation of an interaction with a second party. Do you see how convoluted that looks? It feels very kettly for you to accuse me of lacking truth, plausibility, and rationality in my statements about how Gandalf made me feel when you post evidence with that kind of interpretive spin.

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, with my not-always-helpful preoccupation with details I would have been more careful the first time, but this is well past the first time. This time is a little better: the AfD comment you considered to be a personal attack was the word "I" in "IDONTLIKEIT". However, if we can't use IDONTLIKEIT in AfD discussions, then that essay should be removed for everyone. I wish Durova good luck in explaining such things to you, although that would quickly add her to your enemies list. Art LaPella (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
There is too much I don't understand in that paragraph. No one is saying that we "can't use IDONTLIKEIT" in AfD discussions except a straw man who was just invited to the party. As for your final comment, "although that would quickly add her to your enemies list", I take extreme offense to this statement. You are being personally acrimonious and combative designing hypothetical future declarations that I will make. According to what? Some diving rod? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The "IDONTLIKEIT" quote refers to "He believes that civility is about perception, and that the I of WP:IDONTLIKEIT was unduly personal." (Durova) That was the basis for calling it a personal attack; if it is, then we can't make personal attacks within the rules. As for your extreme offense, what can I say but Bingo! I wasn't so "convoluted" that time! According to what diving [sic] rod? According to my previous experience with you, and in particular your experience with Jehochman. Art LaPella (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

So you were trying to insult me? Okay. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I was explaining something before it happens, and insulting was a byproduct. Art LaPella (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I did that once and was blocked. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
LMAO. Classic. But I think you two should shake hands and be friends. The bickering has been entertaining, but at the end of the day, we're here to build an encyclopedia of pseudoscience. Last one to telekenesis gets stuck with levitation. Plus Artie is supposed to be doing DYK work so I don't get tempted to go back over there and muck about. The last time I "contributed" there I was accused of making a fool of myself! SA from rebel to cabalist. The worm turns... ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
You do that regularly but the context isn't the same. I don't think your cabal can have me blocked this time. If I'm wrong, my business needs some attention and time, and good luck keeping typos off the Main Page without me. Art LaPella (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hook length question[edit]

I'm considering a hook that might be too long. Are you supposed to count what will actually appear on the main page or the underlying code? My initial thought was that you don't want to hog too much space on the main page with one hook, but the rules aren't entirely clear about that. (If you answer here, please leave me a reminder on my talk page) - Mgm|(talk) 08:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not-so-frequently asked question for Did You Know[edit]

Maybe should the previously unwritten rules be merged with the current rules or moved to a separate page under DYK? Simply south not SS, sorry 00:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we discussed that before. Olaf Davis has often discussed producing merged rules, but no one has actually done it, and it would require more understanding of the details than I have. So until that happens, yes it should be a DYK subpage, and it should also be renamed (the rules were "unwritten" before I wrote them down, but that's irrelevant history now). I think one new name suggestion was "General Guidelines". There should be a discussion on the name, and then move it. I've been busy, so the only thing missing is a round tuit. Oh, and it is an Unwritten Rule: G3. Art LaPella (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Should i suggest it at DYK? Simply south not SS, sorry 01:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, go ahead. There was a big argument last time, about 2 weeks ago, but the consensus was more or less as above with one angry dissenter. Art LaPella (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I hope i'm not treading on thin ice. Posed q. Simply south not SS, sorry 03:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, the move request is up. Simply south not SS, sorry 14:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
And the discussion has begun. Art LaPella (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Template_talk:DYK#La_Question[edit]

Perhaps I'm blind, or perhaps you've got a caching issue. Either way, I can't find the redlinks you're talking about. Where are they? I provided three possible hooks and I didn't find a redlink in any of them. Can you be more specific? - Mgm|(talk) 12:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional rules[edit]

Hey Art, would it be worthwhile to mention in section A of the Additional rules that (I believe) article length counts using prosesize.js seem to trump other counters in most situations? I don't know if that's explicit anywhere, but it's the impression I've gotten at T:TDYK. Politizer talk/contribs 04:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. How about: "Prosesize.js is the preferred counting method because it counts only the prose as defined by Did You Know rules, thus avoiding mistakes and providing an impartial settlement of disputed counting. Also, you can install it in minutes, or other editors can install it for you." Art LaPella (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK hooks lingering[edit]

I recently had Schuym complain that there are so much hooks sitting around without any comments and now one I submitted January 20 is suffering the same fate and even now it's expiring, it's still not being commented upon even though it now is pretty much its last chance. Unvetted hooks are unlikely to be chosen so we should somehow improve on the current situation. Any ideas?- Mgm|(talk) 08:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As you may have read at the top of this page, I don't do approvals, so Wikipedia talk:Did you know would be a better place to agitate for approvals. See also Additional Rule G1; unvetted hooks are unlikely to be chosen but also unlikely to be deleted without comment, so impatience is generally misplaced. Art LaPella (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Apostrophe[edit]

Actually {{'s}} generated an extra space, at least on my screen. (I am using Vista and Firefox.) --BorgQueen (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I just tested each using preview, and it isn't exactly a regular space, but a smaller space about a half size of the regular space. When used {{'}}, a very slight space remains there, about 25% size of the regular space. I am not sure if this is bad enough not to use the template - I suspect that the thin space is generated by using a template itself, not because something is specifically wrong with its coding. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nomenclature[edit]

Well done finding the relevant phrase at catastrophism.com. It's hard to anticipate just what the WWW might hold on any topic lately. Thank you for the correction. Phaedrus7 (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Apostrophes[edit]

Why exactly aren't apostrophes or the following 's' linked in DYK? It seems weird to me to only link part of a word. - Mgm|(talk) 11:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't start that practice, but it's done consistently. I presume it's because it's also weird to link to John Doe's if the article is about John Doe, although piping to a different title is fairly common when there's a bigger reason than an 's. Art LaPella (talk)

Re: Ray LaMontagne DYK hook[edit]

Thank you for the comment regarding the hook length. I wasn't sure if I was supposed to edit the hook directly or not, so I went ahead and suggested a shorter hook as a new comment. I believe it is 200 characters, and it removed the repetitive "of the Year" while still getting across the various award titles. Hopefully this one will work! -Whataworld06 (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is short enough; others will review in more detail. I think the User:Art LaPella/Long hook link I provided will answer your implied questions about hook length. Art LaPella (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there[edit]

Could you please help me with something. If you are willing would you please check the prose of List of wind farms in Romania for mistakes because i need a going over by a native english speaker. Thanks in advance. Mario1987 10:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I made such an edit as I have often done before, but someone must have beaten me to it. With the exception of "worth 5,160 MW in Romania" (as if MW were Romanian money), the article sounds as if an American had written it. Art LaPella (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Mario1987 20:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

2009 Victorian bushfires[edit]

Thanks for your help with copyediting. I normally write about dead cricketers, not current events, so I am a bit lost about what to do most of the time with this article. Keep plugging away, I guess. Thanks again, Mattinbgn\talk 02:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

prosesize.js vs prosesizebytes.js[edit]

Hi Art, thanks for fixing the links in that template. Just out of curiosity, what is the difference between User:Dr pda/prosesize.js and User:Dr pda/prosesizebytes.js? As far as I can tell, the only difference is that the first truncates (such as 18,000 B to 18kB) and the second doesn't....I'm hoping that is the only difference, and that the new script still counts characters rather than bytes? If that is the case (that the new script counts the same thing and just displays it differently) then I can see why it would be nice to use it instead of the other, to get more specific counts. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)talk/contribs 19:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct, according to its document. I have tested it with no apparent problems. An exact count wouldn't matter for the 1,500 minimum, but it would matter for the fivefold test. I haven't made the same change to the Additional Rules because I'm doing a much bigger rewrite. Art LaPella (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep, with the little articles it's never been a problem for me, but sometimes when something was already pretty big and then expanded to like 20kB or so it can be hard to tell exactly, if it's borderline. Having the exact count should help with that. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)talk/contribs 20:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


RE: Not Vandalism[edit]

Art, I saw your note. What I saw in a "DID you know" article space was

"...that INSECT SPECIES (pictured) is butt-ugly?"

That looked rather innapropriate for a Did you know entry. Howevever, I looked again after your note and realized I read too quickly. It was explicitly stated that this was an April Fool's "Did you know". My bad! Kosh Naluboutes, Nalubotes Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 12:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK Eccles, Greater Manchester[edit]

Thanks for the message, I was only chancing my arm by submitting it :) The article was largely unreferenced and in a bit of a mess before I started on it. Its hard to 5x expand an article that is almost 10k already but I'm running out of time for DYK - I intend to get the article to GAC soon. I had hoped that the curious hook would get it through... Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)