User talk:Diderot's dreams
Please post any comments for me on this page. Thanks!
- 1 Comments:
- 2 Removing unsourced statements
- 3 Michigan Stadium fact tags
- 4 Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
- 5 Cindy Crawford Vogue Covers
- 6 Osteitis fibrosa cystica
- 7 Question on Tchaikovsky rating
- 8 Barnstar!
- 9 No flagged revisions category up for deletion
- 10 Ok I think I got everything....
- 11 Insects
- 12 GA nom of 1973 Pacific hurricane season
- 13 RE: Nisha Kataria
- 14 GAR
- 15 Love dart
- 16 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
- 17 Did I forget to thank you? ..
- 18 notability of Nisha Kataria
- 19 Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
- 20 GA Re-review of ReactOS?
- 21 Earth Charter
- 22 RE: SLUS edit
- 23 Carbon tax
- 24 12 AM and 12 PM
- 25 Future ReactOS versions
- 26 Florida mouse
- 27 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure
- 28 WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
- 29 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 30 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hi! I would like to stress my concern with a contributor of the Earth Charter page, who has included misleading information. As a person involved in the Earth Charter Initiative I know that he's putting biased and his opinion as if it were facts. His name is Cybercobra, how can we avoid him to undo my work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MilaJECD (talk • contribs) 17:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Removing unsourced statements
- In casual reading, I only do research if I think the fact-tagged statement is true. In this case I have no idea, true or false. The onus of verifiability is on those who want the statement in the article. The standard can't be otherwise, it makes too much work to get rid of dubious content. The encyclopedia would be overwhelmed with junk. So if you think the statements I removed are true, find a source and readd.
- Until then, someone else doubted them (put the fact tag), and no one backed them up with a reference for some time. The statements have failed verifiability, and should be removed.
- Diderot's dreams (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
That was a while ago, so it's hard to say, but looking at the fact tags in the current revision of that article, I'd still argue that they all need citations. None of them strike me as so obvious that they should be taken without a source, and in none of the current cases is there a nearby footnote that obvious would cover that statment. I am certainly not arguing whether these statements are true or false -- I suspect that they are all true, and that most of them could be supported from among the works already used as references -- but simply that each of them should have a specific citation to support it. Is there a specific fact tag that you were wondering about? cmadler (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't really tend to do more than an occassional edit on sports-related articles (except for trying to keep Dynasty (sports) from becoming worse of an uncited POV mess) and, though I'm an alum, I'm not really much of a Michigan State fan. I lived in the area and had taken some photos of Michigan Stadium, and in uploading the photos, I noticed uncited statements that were - as you put it - pretty incredible, and tagged them. My hope was that someone working on the article who had more subject-matter knowledge would quickly be able to supply citations, something that obviously hasn't happened. I can certainly appreciate the concern, and if you think that any of those points don't really need citations, you're welcome to remove the tags. cmadler (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on the GA review of this article. One question: I've added some comments by Dr. David Brown from the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians at the end of the article but do not know whether this was what you had in mind by mentioning Tchaikovsky's impact. Could you please look it over and let me know? Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Cindy Crawford Vogue Covers
- When I saw that Crawford, Turlington, and Evangelista were bereft of interlinking templates, I started looking for ways to get her linked. If any other Fashion mag templates get created, we will probably lose all of them through TfD. But if we keep it to the premier one, I don't think clutter will be a problem. Also, since when is one template clutter? Obviously, two more were coming, but most other models started adding 1990s and 1980s before I even got them cleaned up (1980s are still to incomplete to add). My objective is to have Victoria Secret fashion show, Vogue magazine and Sports Illustrated swimsuit templates. Cindy supporters could surely create a list of cover appearance, but that would not link her to other models. The purpose of a navbox is to link related topics. You can see on my user page subpage for pages started in the template section where this is going. Basically, Crawford will have four templates. I am fairly certain, if Glamour, Elle, etc. templates get created they will all be deleted, but if people support just having the premier cover then it will probably survive. The 1990s template is quite informative if added to Cindy's page. The 1980s probably will be as well. You seem to be the only person removing them as other editors of her peers are adding them before I even get to their pages.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Osteitis fibrosa cystica
Question on Tchaikovsky rating
Hope this doesn't seem ungrateful for all your assistance on the Tchaikovsky article, but here's my question. When Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov became a good article not long ago, the rating in all the areas in which it was listed also changed to GA. On Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky this did not happen; all the categories other than the Arts banner at the top of the talk page are still listed as B-class. Is there something else I should do or was this an oversight? Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for all your help reviewing this article. One more question, though. Do you have any recommendations on what could or should be done with it if it were to be prepared for an FA review? I'm not planing on doing this anytime soon but would still appreciate any feedback. Jonyungk (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
|The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar|
|For your participation in the Spring 2009 GAN backlog elimination drive, in which you reviewed 5 articles, you are granted this barnstar! Great work! —The participants on the Spring 2009 GAN backlog elimination drive 21:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)|
In addition, you may use the userbox located at User:Drilnoth/Userboxes/GAN backlog elimination drive to indicate your participation on your user page. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
No flagged revisions category up for deletion
The category associated with the no flagged revisions userbox you have placed on your user page is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009 April 23#Category:Wikipedia users who oppose Flagged Revisions and you are invited to share your opinions on the issue. Alansohn (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok I think I got everything....
it was a while since I buffed up the Red-capped Robin page, and I found a bit more to add. It is tricky as it has not been as well studied as other birds I have worked up, so coverage is sparse in some areas. In any case I have tried to address all concerns - let me know if you want me to fine tune some more, it's okay to be thorough. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, added a couple of more bits, but breeding age of female is nowhere to be found (I think it is one year but this is not actually specified - and I have also added that it has been little studied, as the source mentions that several times. (phew!) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the original reviewer is off their mark concerning cite web being necessary for GA. I just rechecked the wikipedia GA standards, and that's FA criteria, not GA. Either way, all your references need to be cited in a similar manner, and right now you've cited inline references in at least 3 different ways. Bare references (only hyperlinks with no explanation as to who the article, publisher, etcetera are) are supposed to be avoided. I added a couple lines from the prevailing winds article, also currently under GA review, which related to insects/arthropods. At the very least, I'd suggest using that style of referencing, which is similar in style to that which already exists in some of the insect article's references. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- (Insects?) Hi. You left me (Diderot's dreams) a message about the Insect article, a GA review, and reference formatting. I'm not the nominator of this article or involved in any way. I did some fixing/organizing of the GA templates a few days ago after seeing a problem on the talk page, maybe that's why you thought it was me. Diderot's dreams (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
GA nom of 1973 Pacific hurricane season
For reasons specified on the review page, I have withdrawn the GA nomination of 1973 Pacific hurricane season. If you happen to have any of the associated pages in your watchlist, it is unnecessary to continue watching them. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 03:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
RE: Nisha Kataria
There was no deletion discussion. As noted in the deletion log, it was deleted in accordance with the proposed deletion policy for the reasons listed in the deletion log. Hope this helps. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- I can restore and place it in your userspace if you can source it so it meets notability criteria, before possibly moving back to mainspace. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. Looking over the nomination, I agree with the rationales listed so far. Hopefully somebody works to address the raised issues to help the article retain its status. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
And thanks very much for your careful review. We appreciate your putting time and attention into this. We are already working on implementing your suggestions! Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow! Thank you so much for all your work, and for all of your sympathetic help with this. This is the Gastropods Project's very first Good Article, and my first experience of the outside reviewing process (not counting the DYKs we have done.) I am delighted to get our first Good Article, out of the over 5,000 we have in the Project. Hopefully there will be many more to follow. Very best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
Did I forget to thank you? ..
notability of Nisha Kataria
User:Diderot's dreams/Nisha Kataria is interesting. It is bordering on notable now, although if you had the misfortune to return it to mainspace on a bad day with some overzealous deletion-minded, I fear it could still end up binned. Some information on the singles at the bottom would be highly desirable - did they chart, where were they released, did they get airplay etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
GA Re-review of ReactOS?
Hello, have been fleshing out the abovementioned article a bit and including other secondary sources that I thought would be useful to the article. Would you be able to take a second look, and if you have the time, guide me through the process of making it a GA? Thanks! --LoneRifle (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hello again, and thanks for taking the time on both occasions to have a look at the progress made. Noticed that your comment on the summary has not been strikethrough'd, so I have rewritten it to more directly reflect the content and flow of the article itself. Some guidance at your discretion would be appreciated to better improve it. In addition, I've dropped/replaced all ReactOS Wiki citations as per your point. Thanks for the input! --LoneRifle (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting back to me and the well-wishes. I didn't renominate the article btw, someone else did, but no matter =) --LoneRifle (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Diderot's dreams. I have looked at the guidelines as you suggested. One point I would like to make refers to "Undue" weight. There it says, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Despite what has been alleged, the CCC website features statements by officials of the Roman Catholic Church, and they are all originally sourced. These are certainly not the views of tiny minorities, nor are they exclusively my own views. Yes, they are also my views, but more importantly they are the Church's views and I provide ample support for that. Rather than recopy the original Church statements with original sources into the Wikipedia article, which I think would be redundant and perhaps take the article a bit off track, I am suggesting something small, like a sentence or two about the Church's view (or any opposition view for that matter) or a link to CCC which presents the Church' statements. There is a statement at CCC, referenced, by the current pope, who is highly critical of this movement, although he does not mention EC by name. The Church talks about ideas, ethics, principles, etc., and rarely actually attacks a specific document, organization, etc. But it is clear if one considers thoughtfully the body of the Church's statements about "global super-states" and "new global ethics" that they are referring to the Earth Charter and related efforts to create a new global governance. The founders of the Earth Charter initiative themselves compare the Earth Charter to a "constitution" or "declaration." Example, quote by Gorbachev: "We can use experience of the founding fathers of the United States' Constitution" (speech at the Rio+5 Forum, March 18, 1997)). Founders, such as Maurice Strong, were members of the Commission on "Global Governance." I have a quote at CCC with Gorbachev using the term "world government." A Google search reveals more examples of the use of these terms. My point is that such seemingly "loaded" terms are not my own terms, rather they are terms used by the Earth Charter Initiative or the Church. The Church's view is rather significant here, particularly based on the claims of Earth Charter supporters that the Church somehow supports this movement. At the very least, Pope John Paul II should not appear to be supporting the EC in this article. That's just outright fraud. The quote in the article is not even by the pope, it is by an archbishop, who is simply following Church protocol to welcome a head of state or former head of state to Italy. It is not a statement one way or another about the Earth Charter. Thank you for your consideration.Jake5577 (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Jake5577 (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Jake5577 (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Diderot's dreams! We could use your help with the Earth Charter article. Someone named Vladimir Frolov drastically altered the article, and now it reads like a promo for the EC. I'm opposed to the EC as you'll see, but what I would really would like to see is a balanced article, rather than having it biased to one side or another, as Vladimir recently changed it. The article was great a couple of weeks ago, with all viewpoints fairly covered. Even though I don't like the EC, at least before it was a relatively fair article with integrity. But now its been trashed.
May I add that the man who drastically altered the Earth Charter article, Vladimir Frolov, works for the Earth Charter Initiative in Moscow? Just google his name with "Earth Charter."
RE: SLUS edit
I should have been more precise in my label. As the sentence is currently written, it is violating NPOV. "Low ridership in the first year exceeded lower expectations" is simply a value judgment. Low compared to what? The only barometer mentioned is the expectations, and it exceeded those. Worse yet, it is bad English. To use the same comparative word against itself makes no sense. It only comes off as snarky and diminishes the encyclopedic quality of the article.
I have no problem with the claim you are wanting to make, that ridership was low. However, this claim cannot be made without stating what it is low in comparison to. You could say something like, "While ridership in the first year exceeded modest expectations, it was low in comparison to [other streetcar systems/bus ridership/whatever your standard is]."--Selotll (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Carbon tax, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 21:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
12 AM and 12 PM
I noticed your edit [of a particular article] about noon and midnight. I just wanted to note that actually 12 midnight is considered 12 AM, and twelve noon is 12 PM by convention. You might want to undo your change.
Actually, no, quite to the contrary; I meant every keystroke. I trust NIST as an authoritative source, and I'd ask that you please see http://tf.nist.gov/general/misc.htm To me at least their statements make total sense, and the notion that there is a convention (at least an unambiguous one) one way or the other is flawed, and I wish the entire broadcast industry would likewise update their promotional materials, schedules, etc. The hours I corrected were by inference of the context (meaning for example I doubted that some program would last from 9 AM to midnight).
That notwithstanding, I don't see the point in reverting either, as it's not as if noon or midnight are less understandable than the ambiguous 12AM/12PM counterparts. Actually, this has inspired me to put "check out any noon/midnight wiki articles" on my mental to-do list, and enhance as warranted.
The other thing I wanted to do (but didn't) is make it all uniform, with only (say) "AM" and "PM," and not "am," "a.m.," "A.M.," etc.
Future ReactOS versions
Hi! LoneRifle recommended I contact you regarding the inclusion of future versions of ReactOS. The only source of information is an open wiki, which I believe to be acceptable in this case. This point was brought up in a previous discussion but not resolved. Please discuss this on my talk page.
--Gyrobo (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey Diderot. I passed Florida mouse, but on the GA template I don't know what to put in the oldid parameter of the GA template on the talk page. Could you help me out here? Cheers. Usb10 Connected? 01:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 26 October 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
WikiProject Good articles (the initial messages I sent out went to only WikiProject members and users that had over 15 reviews).
So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
NOTE: If you are interested in becoming a recruiter but do not meet the 15 review requirement, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters and put your status as "Not Available" until you have reviewed enough nominations.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.
A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)