Jump to content

User talk:Pdcook/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 < Archive 2    Archive 3    Archive 4 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  ... (up to 100)


personal communication as a source

Dear PDCook:

Thank you for breaking the Vladimir Littauer article into more readable sections. It looks very nice now.

I have to ask why you consider personal communication an illegitimate source? I note that you are not a humanities scholar, and this may color your experience, but in academia, and in historical research in particular, using personal communication as a reliable source for bibliographical citations is quite routine. In fact, the industry wide standard for creating bibliographies - RefWorks - includes a template to create citations for personal communication.

Most biographers of people who lived within the last century rely heavily on personal communication with people who knew the subject of the biography, first hand, for accurate and colorful depictions of their lives. The author of Seabiscuit interviewed many people who knew the subjects of her biography to produce her non-fiction book. This is just one among many examples I could name. In my case, my source is Capt. Littauer's son.

Perhap you have a legal concern. Please let me know your thoughts. --LizSignalfire2000 (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policies and guidelines here are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Wikipedia can only use sources that have at least some minimal editorial oversight. A personal communication (often one that cannot be seen by WP readers) has no such oversight and often lacks any degree of verifiability. I understand that when books and biographies are written, personal communications are used, but the book is edited, sources are checked, and the book is published (with the name of the author and publisher at stake), and thus it becomes a reliable source. Personal communications may also be considered original research, and Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. In a nutshell, Wikipedia articles need to rely on material that is already published elsewhere. I hope this helps. Regards, PDCook (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Signalfire2000 (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the welcome

I appreciate the welcome and glad to know the GR page already had a list of notables. I missed it the first time. So, your eagle eye is sharper than mine :-) All best. Fairwin99 (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Thanks

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your expert help in protecting the project's reputation. Graham Colm (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why thanks. I'm happy to help. PDCook (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Updated

Hello! I've made changes on the article. Could you check it please if it's better now? Thanks!!! Marios Tofi (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a couple of days so I can determine if the contests he's won are major and thus satisfy WP:MUSIC. PDCook (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your feedback

So, in order to demonstrate more notability, as you suggest, what is most important? references?

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokked (talk • contribs) 17:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking about the Interactive collateral management article. Currently the article is completely unreferenced. Please review Wikipedia's policy on sources and how to cite them. I don't know where you got the information in the article from, but hopefully it doesn't violate copyrights or come from your own experience. Articles in newspapers, magazines, books, etc are the best sources to demonstrate that this topic is notable, especially if you can find links to them online. I really don't know anything about the topic, and so I can't help you as far as content of the article goes. I also recommend rewriting the intro so that anyone can understand what the topic is - put it into context. I hope this helps. Regards, PDCook (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Jean Patrick

Dear Pdcook,

Thank you for your welcome!

I have a procedural question to ask.

The above article was flagged for Neutrality on January 12. I am assuming that is because I had included some of Ms. Patrick's opinions about the importance of customer service in education in my original draft.

I'll admit I wrote it like a former journalist--and journalists are encouraged to use quotes to make a story more interesting and personal. At that time, I did not fully comprehend the difference when one is writing for an encyclopedia.

In any case, the article was flagged for Neutrality when those quotes were still in the article. As a part of the deletion discussion, I came to understand how writing for Wikipedia is different from a newspaper, and I removed the quotes entirely.

There have been no additional comments about Neutrality since the end of the Deletion Discussion on February 5. I am hoping this is because I succeeded in meeting the Neutrality guidelines.

If so--given the normal course of events with Wikipedia--how long is the Neutrality note likely to remain on the article? Captaincorgi (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will remain until someone has looked at it and deemed the article neutral. Give me a couple days and I'll check it over. Regards, PDCook (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pov check tag removed. PDCook (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.Captaincorgi (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Jean Patrick

I have seen a note on Ms. Patrick's article regarding being an "orphan." I went to the page listing graduates of Texas A & M Commerce, which should be a link, but her name is not there.

Will the Wikipedia system eventually make this link? Or do I need to go in and create it?

Thanks.

Captaincorgi (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Category links and Ms. Patrick is listed as a Texas A & M graduate, so I guess the connection has already been made.

Captaincorgi (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been placed in the category: Texas A&M University alumni, among others. However there are no other articles that link to the Ms. Patrick article. You can check this by clicking on "what links here" in the menu on the left side. So until incoming links are added, the article is considered orphaned (fewer than three incoming links). Regards, PDCook (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Article Malayala Sudra

Hi... Saw your edits in Malayala Sudra article. For your kind information, the entire article is used for POV forking and racist abuse. Sudra is the Indian equivalent of ni**er and similar other racist terms. If you go through the talk page, it will become clear that the author used the article for pushing POV. Thanks. Axxn (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was glad to see that someone who actually knew about the page is taking care of it. I was just reverting unexplained blanking by IPs. Regards, PDCook (talk) 04:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my views will be considered as neutral by admins. You can go through the talk page and take a decision of your own. Axxn (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it will all get sorted out by people who actually know about it. I'm in no position to make any decisions. PDCook (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axxn (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is a content dispute and the primary article.The original article was well referenced with research articles. Users Anandks007 and Suresh.Varma 123 have repeatedly shown user biased edit wars. I am most willing for an expert panel evaluation of to resolve content dispute as 30 and multi-party discussions have failed to reach a consensus.--Sanam001 (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in getting involved with this content dispute; I was merely reverting unexplained section blanking by an IP editor. PDCook (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

Thanks!

Thank you! Yes, that's because we wrote it all out in MS Word before transferring it to Wikipedia. We're currently trying to figure out how to upload our extensive reference list. If you're worried about the images, they are all self-created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtlai (talk • contribs) 05:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The images look fine, as long as you've released them into the public domain when you uploaded them. Please review WP:Citing sources. You'll have to add the footnotes to the article using <ref> and </ref> tags. It's not generally acceptable to use html superscripts and then a self-numbered list at the bottom of the article. I recommend using this wizard for generating citation templates that can be placed in the text. It might be easier if you work on this article in your userspace and transfer it to the article space when it's complete. That way, people like me won't complain about it! If you have any questions, please ask. PDCook (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace draft?

Hello, I was wondering what is userspace draft and how do we get to it? Thanks, schun086 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schun086 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and created the page User:Schun086/Bimolecular fluorescence complementation and copied your text into it. This is within your userspace. You or anyone else can edit it, generally free from other editor's concerns. Once it is ready, it can be moved out to the article space. I'm happy to help with this. In the meantime, I've restored the older form of the article. Regards, PDCook (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

We're done now. How do we get the Citation Warning flags removed from our article? It is due to our professor in 1 hour and it might be a bit funny if the first thing he saw was a citation warning flag on our assignment....

Thanks for your help; is much appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtlai (talk • contribs) 06:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Templates removed. The article looks good. PDCook (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help and patience! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtlai (talk • contribs) 19:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Toulouse&action=history

with reference to my comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Toulouse&action=history why the heck did you edit this the feed was direct from stepto and notwen and source provided but you removed the content.

is this a homophobia issue for wikipedia or is it yourself as this is a massive leap forward in understanding. 82.9.92.51 (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I assure you homophobia is not the issue here. The issue is that you can't just dump a bunch of text into a Wikipedia article like that. It is a copyright infringement. You can add text about the statement and how it relates to Mr. Toulouse, and use the statement as reference. Regards, PDCook (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the reply.

copyright is indeed not an issue this was an actual announcment and was the exact wording of that public announcment - sources - http://twitter.com/Stepto http://twitter.com/majornelson

people were asked to retweet and also this is massive historical moment and a massive effort from GLAAD, stepto and team and XBOX GLBT community, this is history worthy and relates to the section posted to.

I am aware as a mod I cannot influence your right to delete willy nilly however in this case no copyright, its a worldwide announcment and press statement as per link (PRESS LINK). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.92.51 (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a statement in the text about this, so I added your reference to that statement. The press release just doesn't make sense dumped into the article like you had it. Regards, PDCook (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


(ref copyright)yes a passing reference and all pages on our website have that as a pre-req to any statement

(ref the data)a massive amount of relevant data and info and links etc and notes, but hey you get to wave your big mighty hammer around for the sake of it. its not covered by the copyright issues. If your concerned you can ask stephen or larry to clarify that they are happy for this to be posted, or i can ask them to email you directly if your owning this page with an IRON FIST. its not just " dump a bunch of text" as you state this is important to a lot of people and as i previously stated a massive HUGE leap forward and shushing it to one side as stating " dump a bunch of text" is not the most mature way forward.


(ref tone of your comments and attitude) this was not dumping massive bunch of text I took the time to link sources, fit it and make sure it was all correct. I am becoming used to the fact now though that you are not open to discussion and your word is law, logic be damned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.92.51 (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine if every WP article had a full press release dumped into it every time an important event happened. Instead, the proper thing to do is provide an encyclopedic account of the event and supply a reference to the press release. The article already mentioned this change in policy. I took the liberty of adding as a reference (ref# 12) the press release. So if readers wish to read the whole thing, they can follow the link. Regards, PDCook (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And if you believe that I am truly owning this page with an iron fist, then please bring up this issue on the article's talk page, and others can weigh in on it. Regards, PDCook (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kalodimos

Hey Pdcook, thanks for creating the article on Demetria Kalodimos. As a person that grew up watching her on WSMV, it's nice to see that it was made. When I have some spare time, I'll see if I can add some more material to it (hopefully of the personal bio nature). Cheers! — Huntster (t @ c) 04:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was happy to make it, and of course I welcome your additions. I'm still looking for some independent sources that mention her Midsouth Emmys. Right now it's sourced to her WSMV page and articles from her alma mater. It doesn't seem like the Midsouth Emmys have been published online until the past couple of years. Regards, PDCook (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I was finding sources for the Lifetime Achievement Award that the Midsouth Chapter awarded NASA TV, I noticed the same thing...you'd think that a major media organisation like the Emmys would make sure that such material was widely available! — Huntster (t @ c) 04:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Politics in Tunisia: WRONGLY accused of vandalism

My changes in Politics of Tunisia are reverted as vandalism when all I did was to replace false narrative without any references with an accurate and well sourced assessment. Pity the Tunisians who have to put up with their dictator's ideological brain-wash even in wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.28.131 (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting involved with this issue; I'll let the appropriate wikiproject deal with it. PDCook (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I will review the material you suggest and use the feature carefully. PDCook (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

re

Found short one here, I'll create the stubs then expend them at a later time. Personally I don't think it's necessary to create articles about compounds not used because of easier prepared analogue compounds, but thought that if pokymons have theirs... :) -RobertMel (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that as reference. -RobertMel (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do you think I should continue creating those stubs to compleat the missing pharmacology aticles? Many didn't even pass phase III, others are not used anyway. -RobertMel (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an issue of notability. I believe the threshold for inclusion for chemicals is far lower than biographies for example, but the information must first be verifiable, and the chemical must be at least somewhat notable. If the only references you can find are one or two passing mentions in books or articles largely about other things, then maybe it's not so notable. However, if you find that the chemical has been researched by a few different labs and can find some papers that are largely about the compound, then it might be notable. An example of this is copper ibuprofenate. When I first saw the article I thought it was obscure and almost supported its deletion, but after a little digging I found several references. It subsequently survived AfD. That being said, this is just my opinion and others might think differently depending where they sit on The Spectrum. PDCook (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was not sure for both Butynamine and Glicaramide, for Glicaramide I thought of making a passing mention in the Glibenclamide article then redirecting the former to the later. But did not know how and in what context to present it in the Glibenclamide article. Butynamine is more problematic, because redirecting it to what? It could help to submit it for deletion to see others opinion on the matter so that I have a precedent to base myself on. There are works on Butynamine, but more about its preparation etc. -RobertMel (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have submitted Glicaramide for deletetion, first nimination was screwed so I filled another one. -RobertMel (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Donald Schultz

My apologies for losing the category on Donald Schultz. I missed your intermediate edit after giving up on trying to unscramble the additions which were all copyright violations. Cheers! -- Whpq (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you didn't lose them. I only added cat:living people with my most recent edit. Thanks for cleaning the article up! PDCook (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Stanley, Bishop of Sodor and Man

Never communicated in this way before so apologies if I commit any errors of protocol. You're quite right, I hadn't, but meant to, and now I have. Best wishes. Lonstan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonstan (talk • contribs) 19:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Pdcook. You have new messages at Immunize's talk page.
Message added 13:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Immunize (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antifreeze protein article

In Antifreeze protein what do you think about having "recrystallization" in the lead section link to the crystallization article? What might be a better article to describe the water crystallization process? John 14:23 (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Your proposal to link it to crystallization is reasonable, and I went ahead and linked it. Regards, PDCook (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Zhang Haijie

Hi, I've responded to the discussion on the talk page of the article. Please take a look. Have you considered requesting administrator intervention regarding the user conduct of User:Youmaynotknowme? _LDS (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. The user is likely an SPA, and I consider him/her on thin ice but haven't gotten an admin involved yet. I'm hoping the user realized his/her errors and will either contribute constructively, or just go away. If he/she continues to make unfounded claims of libel and hoaxes or makes a concrete legal threat, then I would probably seek further assistance. If you wish to go ahead and get an admin involved now, I'd be fine with that. Maybe I have too much patience! PDCook (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to wait and see how he/she would respond first before taking the issue to the admins. _LDS (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Schmidlin disruptive editor back after final warning

199.175.219.1 just came back to do more disruptive editing, following the final warning you gave on the IP's talk page. I rv'd him. I'll support you in any admin action that's needed in this instance. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for admin intervention re: 199.175.219.1, at the Administrators Noticeboard here, in case you'd like to add comment. -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I arv'd the IP for removal of tags after 4th warning. The IP has been blocked. Thanks for your help. Maybe now a decent article can emerge. Regards, PDCook (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re :Thanks

Same to you for reverting vandalism on mine ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grand County Middle School

You recently added a Merg tag to the Grand County Middle School article, citing that it may not be notable enough for an article. I believe this to be false. ANY school ANYWHERE should be notable enough for its own article. I do, however, agree that the article needs A LOT of work to meet Wikipedia standards. 74.214.250.169 (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to login before adding the above. CrAsHeDaTatalk 08:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's all about coverage in reliable sources. If you can find sources that demonstrate why that school is notable, then it should remain a stand alone aticle. Currently the article is completely unreferenced and there is no indication it is notable, and thus should be merged with the appropriate locality. Regards, PDCook (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah we are going to have to agree to disagree here. Here is a few sources though:
How do those references demonstrate notability? PDCook (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you don't think they do, then I don't understand how you have the IQ to be a scientist that actually knows what he is doing (personal opinion). Again, I think ANY School is notable, REGARDLESS. How about I search for school articles from your state that have no references, or just refs similar to this, and add tags to remove or merge them? CrAsHeDaTatalk 03:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll kindly ask that you not engage in a personal attack here. Wikipedia has a notability policy, and I recommend you review it. You are welcome to recommend merge for any articles you wish. If they are non-notable, regardless of which state they're in, they should be merged/deleted. PDCook (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it, I understand it, and it was not an attack, but an opinion. According to the notability policy, the second source I listed would be considered a reliable source. The first might not though. CrAsHeDaTatalk 03:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Un-indent) That second source is a directory. I get the feeling every school in the US is listed there, and there doesn't seem to be anything noteworthy about Grand County Middle School. You would need to find references such as newspaper or magazine articles that show that this school is special. I guarantee that if this article were brought to AfD, the result would be to merge. PDCook (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What ever you say. I am done. This is the reason why I left Wikipedia for sev years in the first place. Due to people like you. A few people deciding whats best for many. Looks like I am leaving again. Good day.CrAsHeDaTatalk 03:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am no more powerful than you. PDCook (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well if your rational was accurate, more than half the towns in the U.S. with Wiki articles would be un-noteworthy. Census sources would not be reliable sources as they "list every town in the United States".CrAsHeDaTatalk 03:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any incorporated municipality meets the notability guidelines. So your statement is incorrect. I'm not just making these things up, they are policies/guidelines that have been developed by consensus. Despite what many people think, Wikipedia is not the Wild West; there are rules. PDCook (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Notability_of_article_topics there are even times when Admins will disagree with each other on what constitutes a reliable source. CrAsHeDaTatalk 04:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that that source might be OK for some purposes, but it does not demonstrate notability. PDCook (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to rewrite the article and if you can find that the school has in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources, then by all means please do. We welcome such additions. PDCook (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My recent change

on 99 was because those references no longer work - gilbert

Was gilbert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.27.185 (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. You merely removed a closing ref tag, which messed up the article. I'm not sure why you wanted to remove the reference, as the link seems to work just fine. PDCook (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Keene

Hi PDcook. I'd appreciate your assistance in identifying what would be the most helpful way to address the issues you have identified in the Richard Keene article. Your note recently added suggests it needs more consistent referencing, footnotes, etc. It would be very helpful to me in going about this work if you could point out which parts you felt needed this. Any other specific suggestions you have for improvement would be greatly appreciated and I will then set about making the article better. Many thanks for your help and interest. Jb3ddd Jb3ddd (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general the article is well-written, but there are/were a few details regarding layout and citing sources that are inconsistent with Wikipedia's style. Check out WP:MOS. I fixed a few of them, and I am happy to help a little more. The biggest thing is citing sources; it is necessary that the references be complete. I recommend reviewing WP:Citing sources. There are also some useful templates you can place between the <ref> and </ref> tags here: Wikipedia:CIT#Examples. For books, be sure to include page numbers. For websites, be sure to include the access date, since things on the internet change. Maybe I'll do a few in the Richard Keene article as an example. I hope this helps. Regards, PDCook (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue is that of reliable sources. You should check out WP:RS for what is considered a good source. I'm not sure if genealogy websites are considered reliable. PDCook (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, many thanks for your prompt and constructive feedback. I will set about reading the guides you have indicated and doing the work you suggests in the next few days. I appreciate your suggestion of making some changes yourself - that will certainly help to model good Wiki practice for me. Thanks again and please do keep providing feedback - as you will appreciate I am relatively new to Wiki, but keen to learn. Best wishes.Jb3ddd (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your work on Richard Keene. This has greatly improved the article and given me a much clearer idea of how to set about improving articles myself. I have found a citation for Keene's membership of the Linked Ring, in the Maxwell Craven biography which already appears in the refs list. I will add that, but haven't yet found out how to indicate the relevant pages when a single source is used for multiple references. Any guidance you can offer on this would be appreciated.Best wishes. Jb3ddd (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, I formatted the reference you added (Craven) using the {{citebook}} template. There is a parameter in there that says pages. Add the relevant page range there. If you wish to cite the same book, but different pages, rename the first reference something like <ref name="Craven1">{{citebook...}}</ref> with the first set of page numbers, and <ref name="Craven2">{{citebook...}}</ref> with the second set of page numbers. You can then re-cite those pages later in the article by using <ref name="Craven1" /> or <ref name="Craven2" />. I hope this helps. Any other questions, just ask. Happy editing. PDCook (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Faster than light

PDCook, I appreciate that you mean well, but Special Relativity is an explanation of how the universe is. It explains why you can't see or detect a speed greater than c. It has become a very common misunderstanding, from that, to think you can't actually go faster than c. Yet SR has no mechanism to stop your acceleration. It might be popular to believe SR will put out some big hand to stop your spaceship from going faster than c, but that's NOT what SR is. In fact, even in the article you can find those with that misunderstanding themselves giving an examples of faster than c. They try to wiggle around it with terms like "proper speed", only the co-moving observer counts, etc. etc. It is the people who keep reverting the article, usually without ANY explanation, who are committing the vandalism. I GAVE explanations on the talk page, which were not refuted, yet people STILL keep reverting the article. 216.239.82.80 (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here to discuss SR, as it is not my area of expertise, just an area of interest. I only got involved with this because you added commentary into an article, which is against Wikipedia policy. When others reverted this addition, you edit warred with them. Please do not add commentary to articles in the future. If you disagree with content, the only place to discuss this is on various talk pages. If efforts to generate a conversation on the article's talk page were unsatisfactory, you can start a new section at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics, which probably has more traffic than the article talk page. Regards, PDCook (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comments I put in the article were intended to PREVENT edit warring. People just reverted my edits because they disagreed with them and in most cases IGNORED what had been laid out on the discussion page. I suppose what I should have done was flag their reverts as possible vandalism, but I didn't know how to do that, and it seems kinda harsh. Nor was I trying to generate conversation, though if people could explain why the edits were wrong, they COULD have given their reasons on the discussion page. Anyway, sorry, I'll try to behave better. 216.239.82.80 (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree others could have behaved a little better toward you. Again, if you feel this is unresolved, the best thing would be to bring it up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics. PDCook (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would also recommend registering an account, as you seem to be interested in this topic. Generally speaking, other editors will take more seriously the contributions/discussions of a registered user with a history of useful edits. PDCook (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I should just give up. Frankly, I applaud you for having mastered, more than I think I could, the complexities of Wikipedia. 216.239.82.80 (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally do not think you should give up. I do not think I've quite mastered things yet. However, I have learned a lot and it has taken some time. I think the key is do more observing first, then discuss, then act. I think your contributions would be valued, so I hope you'll consider staying around. I will say, that if you have a content dispute with some editors, the debates can get heated. But I think most people want articles to be fair and accurate. PDCook (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't know. I tried to be more careful. Yet one person reverted my edit only because I used the word "you". The person didn't change the wording --- which might have been constructive --- but just did a complete reversion. 216.239.82.80 (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You also added your signature to the article. There were several points. Ian Cairns (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this whole thing has gotten off to a bad start. The best you can do is stop edit warring and provide links (on the talk page) to sources that interpret SR the way you are saying it should be interpreted. Many people are surprised to find out just how important sources are on Wikipedia. Yes there are a lot of crap articles that are virtually unsourced, but many projects carefully watch over their articles and ensure that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are being followed. PDCook (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pdcook/Archive_3&oldid=1049408164"