User talk:Sgerbic/Archives/2011/12

Skeptoid

Please don't spam external links to the skeptoid.com podcast. See WP:ELNO, item 11. Acroterion (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding external links to articles that are relevant to the WP article is not spam.Sgerbic (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, see WP:ELNO, particularly #11: blogs and podcasts are to be avoided, unless they're very narrowly targeted. Shotgun addition of links to a particular website is not appropriate. The exceptions to this policy are quite specific. Acroterion (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see a few examples where such a link would be appropriate: Marfa lights and Devil's Footprints, for example, but most of your links are simply links-for-the-sake-of-links to general topics. Bogs in general aren't reliable sources, although I'm open to persuasion on this one, but you need to slow down and seek consensus that your actions are appropriate. Acroterion (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Brian Dunning and Skeptoid aren't "just a blog and podcast" they are notable and have their own WP pages. I have researched these edits and have saved them up for a day when I had the time to edit them onto pages, which is today. I had no idea that there was a rule that editors need to "slow down" when editing. If you were to read the article I am linking to you would find that they are relevant to the article they are placed in. I would think that the individuals that are watching the page would be a better judge to my edit, simply reverting my edits is rather unnerving. If I take the time to add the link to the discussion page and wait for consensus then I might be waiting for ages. It is better to be bold and add the link, and then if there is a problem then it can be discussed by people who understand the topic. Sgerbic (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I've raised the question at WP:RSN as to the usefulness of the website: as I said, I see some merit to careful use of the site for narrowly-targeted subjects. I appreciate your boldness: now it's time to discuss. You'll note that I've not reverted all, but since two editors have expressed concern, it's now time for the discussion phase of WP:BRD. That's what I mean by "slow down": please gather consensus. Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted all of this editors edits adding links to this site as I consider them link/reference spamming. I will continue to revert them as spam unless I see a wide consensus to add them to a large range of articles. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

While there is no "rule" requiring you to slow down, whenever anyone blasts a bunch of links into several different articles, it looks suspicious and draws attention, especially from the anti-spam crowd (of which I consider myself a member). Add that the elements you're promoting are podcasts (can a deaf person use them?), and I see trouble. Some will eventually ask--although I'm not--if you have any connection, financial or otherwise, to the site or its author. External Links and See Also sections are abused and over-used in many WP articles. Please be careful about what you add and avoid the appearance of a shill. Thank you. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 13:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion at RSN is moving productively, and as several editors have noted, your intentions are good, and the discussion is valuable. Consensus at this point is the links to skeptoid text (not audio) may be a valuable addition to topics that are firmly in fringe topics, interpreted pretty narrowly, but are not so appropriate for more mainstream topics, interpreted rather broadly. Certain topics like homeopathy tend to be landmines in any case, so discretion is needed. Acroterion (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I restored the information and reference Sgerbic added to Biodynamic agriculture. Looks like we're going to have broad consensus at RSN that the source is ideal for such articles. I've not looked at the edits to other articles, but in Biodynamic agriculture I'm concerned that the quote is a bit lengthy and it would be an improvement if it were replaced with a short summary more closely written around what is already in the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

William B. Davis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Director, CBC, The Outer Limits and Numb

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful article

William B. Davis is fantastic, your edits made a huge difference in quality! Nicely done! You should put it up for Good Article status! Not sure if you're aware, but there are some great article checking tools here Dreadstar ☥ 19:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I'm still very new at this and learning on the fly. I wanted to nominate it for DYK? as it was a stub when I got it, but I messed up and started adding things to the page bit-by-bit instead of working on it as a User Page (which I eventually did). So the changes weren't drastic enough from the last change to the subsequent "finished page". Also I realized that I didn't have enough text for it to be 5-fold improved.

I'm easily confused with WP instructions but it was really simple how to nominate the page for GA. Now I just wait and see what other editors think, then fix based on their recommendations right?

I do feel a little guilty as there is a horrible back-log on the nomination page, and over and over they are asking for help. I'm not sure I understand enough to be able to offer real help. Maybe once I go through this process I will learn enough to help eventually.

Thanks again, meant a lot! Sgerbic (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you're quick, nominated already! It'll take a while to get a GA reviewer, which is good, it'll give time to make some improvements to the article. For instance, the lead needs to be expanded, and we need to really verify that all the photos have the right licensing (looks like they do, but we may need to do a little more verification with the uploader). I'd be very happy to help work on it with you, maybe get some other GA-experienced eyes on it too. Hope you're having a wonderful Holiday Season! Dreadstar ☥ 18:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone from the x-files wikiproject looked it over yesterday and said the same thing about expanding the lead (I've seen this spelled lede, what is correct?) So I expanded it last night. Hope it is what you were thinking. The pictures should be okay, but I'm not all that good at knowing how to check once they are uploaded. Please change what you think needs to be changed and invite more eyes. Thank you Sgerbic (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead and lede are both correct. I prefer "lead" as it's more intuitive (it's the "lead paragraph", leading the article), but "lede" stems from use by journalists to be more widely accepted. Knowing is half the battle. GRAPPLE X 19:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Grapple X. We have so many "in-words" it makes new editors intimidated. I think I like lead better also.Sgerbic (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I used to like lead better, but have gotten used to lede and I use both depending on my mood.  :) There's a good description of the origin of lede here. Both are used interchangeably on WP: WP:LEDE and WP:LEAD um...lead to the same page... Dreadstar ☥ 21:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

very cool. English can be a pretty messed up And exciting language. I like knowing the history of the wordSgerbic (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)