Jump to content

User talk:Smartse/archive 6

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

Talk:Fomes fomentarius

Just to let you know, I do appreciate your comments, I am reading them and I will get to them. J Milburn (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, there's no rush. I should really do a GAR as I've not done any before, but I'm kind of apprehensive of doing them for some reason. Poke me if nobody takes it within a week or so and I'll see what I can do. SmartSE (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:FPC

I'd imagine the picture would fail here, as it doesn't really show anything- though it's very pretty, the "encyclopedic value" is low, and the colours don't look fully natural; I'd probably oppose it. I can transclude it if you like, that wouldn't be a problem. J Milburn (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Cannabis (drug)

Please examine your own situation for possible conflict of interest. Especially ask yourself where you acquired the conviction that dosage figures are "unnecessary" in captions related to alternative means of administering cannabis with greater or lesser potential for "drug effect" which may be attributed to the cannabis, and in respect to the social mandate to provide information such as may constitute a warning against mixing tobacco with cannabis. To withhold these may amount to denial of service to clients of Wikipedia, especially youngsters seeking true relevant information, and contradict the stated (overstated?) promise in the 2008 fund raising slogan, "Help Wikimedia change the world!"

Do you own stock in a tobacco corporation, or in a mutual fund which owns stock in a tobacco corporation? Are you employed by a business which draws part of its revenue from retailing tobacco products? Do you live in a state or province which provides governmental services, in part, on the basis of tobacco tax revenue? Could you be motivated by the memory of a departed parent who favored tobacco use or hot dosages of smoking products? --etc.Tokerdesigner (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tokerdesigner, thanks for your message. Firstly, could I ask you to remember that you should assume good faith as to why I made my edits, rather than jumping to the conclusion that I made them for some monetary reward. Secondly, our COI guidelines do not apply to situations like this, in the same way that they do not apply for a Christian editing articles about Christianity. I confirm that the only motivation you've listed could be that I live in a country with extremely high taxation on tobacco products. Anyway, now to explain why I made the edit I did, it contains unverifiable information "A practice of mixing hashish with tobacco in a joint, making it easier to light, detracts from users' ability, especially in Europe, to detect contaminants in hashish." and per WP:BURDEN it is up to you to provide a reliable source to back up this statement. The way it is written sounds as if it is original research to me, rather than being based on verifiable published information, but please correct me if I am wrong. Similarly the captions contain original research - unless you rolled the joint and then uploaded the photo (which you didn't) then there is no way that you can tell how much cannabis is used in the joint, and I don't see how adding this improves the caption for our readers regardless. This was discussed at the talk page and it looked pretty clear to me that no policy-based arguments were made for it to be included. The same applies to the pipe caption - who says the pipe is designed for 25mg doses? I'm completely for providing information for youngsters so that they can make informed decisions (see for example Mephedrone#Harm_reduction which I wrote, along with most of the rest of the article) but it must have a source to back it up because otherwise it is useless - there is no difference between me adding that smoking tobacco with cannabis makes it safer than you saying it makes it less safe, unless one of us has a source to back up what we say. I'd love to see the cannabis article improve and will be happy to help you if I can to find sources. Sorry this turned into a bit of an essay, please let me know if anything is still unclear. SmartSE (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I do assume good faith, perhaps I suspect not a direct monetary reward but unconscious favoritism (on this ussue many editors are "innocent on grounds of insanity").
A pertinent cannabis-plus-tobacco reference is (currently) no. 106, The Australian Government DoH paper, which has relevance where it is, down in the Gateway Drug paragraph, but if more prominently positioned, or cited twice, could serve the readership better?
Whether it is provable, with citations, that a midwakh, kiseru or sebsi is designed for 25-mg. servings? I will keep looking. Perhaps a reminder of the obvious is a service to readers within the WP mandate: "If it looks like a one-hitter, it is a one-hitter."
Leaving the numbers aside, is any picture of a hot burning joint necessary in this article? I'd be satisfied to sacrifice my other additions if that were absent. A picture of a joint is free advertising for the "cigarette" format and also, in European context, for the concept of mixing with tobacco (the Nederlands "joint" article actually states, in its first paragraph, an unproven assumption that the word "joint" originally referred to the joining of cannabis and tobacco).
Your sample mephedrone paragraph is good, I will only add that with cannabis we are addressing a huger constituency and the issues are correspondingly more urgent. This particular article gets 27,000 hits a day (9 million a year).Tokerdesigner (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Well if I am "innocent on grounds of insanity" then I'll be happy to be enlightened by sources showing I'm wrong. That ref is indeed interesting, but the article is should mainly be about cannabis, rather than tobacco and if that reference was to be used more, it would be better off in Cannabis consumption or cannabis smoking (where I see you've added similar information to what I removed from the main article) rather than the main article. I guess you're invoking WP:COMMON or WP:BLUE in the captions, but I don't think this is valid, since as I mentioned before, I could just as easily claim they were different weights. Re mentioning joints, the answer is definitely yes, regardless of your point of view, joints made with tobacco are one of the most common routes of administration and so not having a picture makes it less encyclopedic and I don't really think a claim that it is advertising is relevant here. Making a similar analogy from the mephedrone article again, sources say that snorting is the most harmful (and the most common) way to take the drug, but that doesn't mean that no mention of it is made. Instead we inform the reader of the facts, but leave the interpretation of them to the reader. As I said before, if you can find reliable sources for joints being dangerous, and them damaging THC, then I'd be happy to see them included, but as it stands they shouldn't be mentioned. SmartSE (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The joint is described and a link to the joint article provided, surely enough to make this article encyclopedic?
Re alternative herbs, I suggest the most popular-- hops (Humulus lupulus), lobelia, peppermint be mentioned.Tokerdesigner (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Having been busy yesterday and today I did not do much on wikipedia and now I saw the article is now on show — which is great! I wanted to thank you yet again for the incredible amount of elbow grease, which has greatly improved the article (which I hope you found interesting). I hope I can return the favour in the future. --Squidonius (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, glad to be of some use. I'm glad that we've filled in a big hole here by creating an article about a branch of the tree of life that probably contains millions of species but is essentially still unexplored, it reminded me of this article about marine bacteriophage which weren't even known about until ~10 years ago! (Just noticed Cafeteria roenbergensis virus whilst searching for that paper, which would make a cool DYK if it could be 5x expanded). SmartSE (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: DYK

Hi Smartse! Thank you for informing me about the new guideline. I was not aware of it. I have reviewed this hook and pointed it out next to my nomination, which seems to have been approved. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 23:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cannabis_smoking

Please refer to talk page discussion, ThanksTokerdesigner (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Done SmartSE (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Miracle Mineral Supplement ‎

Raised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Shuzammy_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29 Andy Dingley (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Euprenolepis procera

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

COI / Hill & Knowlton

Thanks for your contribution to the politics of the maldives COI discussion. As someone who tries to follow the rules very carefully, it's pretty disheartening to have personal allegations of wrongdoing levelled against you. Niall Cook (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem continues. Any way you can help? See diffs: here, here, here, here, here, here, I could go on. Contribs look like an all-out attack designed to discredit me. Appreciate any help you can offer. Niall Cook (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've left them a note reminding them / letting them know that they must be civil and that if they continue to attack you, they are likely to end up blocked. Most of the diffs don't look too problematic except the one to your talk page, I would refactor some of the comments added to article talk pages, but I don't think they fall under any of the relevant reasons to do so. I'll keep an eye on your talk page and the H&K article and if necessary seek help from admins if it's needed. SmartSE (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Appreciate your help. Niall Cook (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

New article patrol

Looking at the new article Northern Cebu, I see it is an almost exact copy of part of the existing article Cebu, which incidentally does not mention Northern Cebu as a province. I have tagged it with Notability|date=January 2011 as I don't believe the subject is notable because there is nothing to show that the province exists, and in any case, the information is only a duplicate of the other article. Is this the right approach? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, this a bit of a tricky one as I think that geographical areas are intrinsically notable, but I can't seem to find a guideline to back that up. Although the article doesn't contain any references to demonstrate it is a province, a google shows that there is at least some possibility that it is. I think the best course of action in a case like this, is to drop a note at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines explaining that you're not sure whether we should have an article on Northern Cebu or not. Hopefully some editors there will know more about it than you or I and would be able to recommend the best course of action, such as redirecting it to Cebu or expanding it. SmartSE (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I've done what you suggested. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
No problem. SmartSE (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Another question or two

If a genus authority is given as Leach in Brewster, 1815,, I guess the Leach is Leach. To what does the Brewster refer?

Is there an easy way of identifying the full name of the person represented by the authority abbreviation? I know there is a Wikipedia list here but I do not believe it is complete - I just added Asa Fitch - so is there some outside online source for such information? Also for plants, fungi etc? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

To your first question, I assumed you were talking about this draft and so google scholared "brewster lacewing" and found this which says it was first published in Brewster's Edinburgh Encyclopedia, then I had a look at our Brewster article and had a guess at who's encyclopedia it could have been and found it was David Brewster. I think this is probably quite unusual, so I would probably mention this in the prose and only leave Leach in the taxobox.
The short answer to your second question, is unfortunately, no. Generally speaking, they can be found by searching for the surname on here and then searching through the list. There are redirects for botanical authorities such as L. for Linneaus, but I gather these are only used in botany for some reason and there is also List of botanists by author abbreviation and List of mycologists (also incomplete). I just noticed this over at Wikispecies which looks as if it might be quite useful. I've also had a google and can't find any complete lists, I guess this would be because most scientists only work in a small field and so would know who the authority was without having to look it up. If you can't find a name on any of these, then you need to resort to using the "author:xxx" field in google scholar, along with some other words you might expect to crop up, but that can take a while! SmartSE (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again. I have plenty still to learn! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry there's still plenty to come, you haven't started on tables yet, they're still pretty incomprehensible to myself! SmartSE (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Civility and special interests

Please be civil

Hi Knopffabrik, can I please remind you (or let you know) that civility is one of the five pillars of the project. Edits the last sentence of this diff could be deemed to be harassment and don't help to improve the encyclopedia, if you were to continue to make them, your account could be blocked. As I was trying to get across to you at COIN, I'm no fan of PR companies editing Wikipedia, but have come to accept since I started to edit here that it is unfortunately inevitable and will continue whatever action we take as some contributors to this request for comment discussed. If you can find examples of where H&K have recently been altering information to be favourable to their clients it should be looked at, but attacking editors simply for being employees of the company and expecting them to apologise for actions made more than 5 years ago, isn't the way to do this. If you are passionate about keeping the project free of corporate spin, then there is always plenty of work to do at COIN and I would be glad to help you learn the ropes of how to deal with problems in a constructive way. I would respectfully ask that you desist from attacking Niall Cook however, who as I said before, does not seem to have done anything wrong. Thank you SmartSE (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I don't quite understand how one could regard it as harrassment if I write in a private discussion that I find it sad if someone who reveals himself to be marketing director of a PR firm doesn't dissociate himself from severe wrongdoings by people he represents. You are free to have your opinion but threatening a block in this case to me seems completely disproportional. It is not my fault no one ever reacted to it in five years although it was out on several websites. I would say time enough for a marketing director to apologize but all he does is ranting in the Hill & Knowlton discussion, he even tried to have a "notable clients" section restricted to current clients. As if it was a marketing article. It's up to him how he wants to earn his money, it's up to me to find it sad. I only wrote that once and unless anyone asks me I won't do it again. It wouldn't change anything anyway. Furthermore, I don't "attack" him. How could I, I don't even know him. As we are already discussing these things, I would like you to know that I also found it sad when you claimed the Hill & Knowlton spin was "not problematic". Guess we just have to agree to differ there. Knopffabrik (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
If someone finds your note intimidating, as they have, then I consider that to be harassing them, in my opinion, it's quite clear that it had nothing to do with improving the project. I see little point in discussing something which happened five years ago, regardless of what it was, but in this case as I explained at COIN, the removal of unsourced controversial material was understandable. That doesn't mean for one second that I'm happy about it, but what can we do? Suggesting things on the talk page is not "ranting" and is what WP:BESTCOI suggests should be done, the client list is an editorial decision and you are right not to only include current clients. As for an attack, I hardly consider "I however find quite sad that you don't even show with a single word that you dissociate yourself from the edits made from your IP in support of a dictator who paid your company" to be friendly and collegiate, which is the way we should treat fellow editors, regardless of how strongly we disagree with them. I was not threatening you with a block either, for starters I cannot block you, but just letting you know that if you were to continue like that, you could be blocked. As you've now promised that you won't do it again there is no problem. SmartSE (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I find your argumentation irritating. Just because someone else feels harrassed doesn't mean he got harrassed. If someone feels harrassed and complains to others about "harrassment" because someone else offers to shake hands with him, whose problem is that? I have a right to leave a note on a user page and to be straightforward as much as he has the right to say he doesn't want to discuss it, so that's it. Furthermore, as I already explained at the COI discussion, the manipulation did not lie in the removal of unsourced accusations but in the clearly not neutral rewording of text that before was unsourced and negative for the government and afterwards was still unsourced but showed the government in a ridiculously favorable way. This while getting paid for it is just scandalous. Knopffabrik (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I guess we will have to agree to disagree, further arguing is even more pointless than it was in the first place. SmartSE (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Bacon Ice Cream

Thanks for your thoughts at Bacon ice cream, I think I've addressed your concerns - hope my changes covers them Worm 14:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I appreciate it. Am rather pleased with Doom Bar myself, am sure I'll get it to Featured one day, I just have to motivate myself to do a proper push. Can't say I've heard of Pig's Ear... though isn't it cockney rhyming slang for beer? I assume it's from a London brewery and will keep an eye out for it! Worm 11:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Review

Thank you for reviewing my article Pathogen reduction using riboflavin and uv light. I will take in your suggestions to improve the quality of the article. Thanks PREMIS2010 (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, it looks as if Boghog has beaten you to it on quite a few of the points. Let me know if you need any further assistance. SmartSE (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that the external link I tried to provide was deleted under the "what not to link to guidelines" and I can see why now. I didn't want the article to appear promotional so deliberately decided to leave the product process name that the article discused out of the actual article, and was going to have the external link satisfy that need instead. since I can not have an external link now, would you suggest briefly mentioning the product in the article? Thanks PREMIS2010 (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping me a note, it can only really be included if an independent source has discussed it and named the product process. I guess you could mention that one product is made by Mirasol, but you should most certainly also include the names of any other companies who make similar products to ensure that the article remains neutral. Personally, I'm not sure mentioning any companies is necessary, unless sources discuss how they have been particuarly important in the development of the technology. SmartSE (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors

I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Glischrochilus

Hello! Your submission of Glischrochilus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Fæ (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Good call...

On the 72 Point and Palamedes PR redirects. I was tempted, but it was late... – ukexpat (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. I'll know who to go to if I want some PR done because they were lovely adverts, but unfortunately not encyclopedia articles! SmartSE (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Bath salts

Just made the mention of MDPV a hatnote in order to direct everyone to the right place. This is one of the times I'd rather the media just name the darned drug than apply a silly 'street name' on it to scare the parents. Nate • (chatter) 02:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I think it is better to point it to designer drug though, because "bath salts" has been used to refer to many different compounds in the last year and certainly not just MDPV. Thinking about it, it might be best to write a section in the designer drug article about why they are described as bath salts and then link there from the bath salts hat note. I'm not sure about in the US, as I haven't been keeping up with most of the media there, but here in the UK, the reason to describe them as bath salts is because it allowed websites to get around the Medicines Act, which prevents selling biologically active compounds for internal use. Are the headlines in the US along the lines of "teens snort toxic bath salts to get high" ?! Oh, I just realised that I didn't actually make a hat note to designer drugs when I removed the other stuff a couple of weeks ago, I meant to, but must have got distracted. Does this sound reasonable to you? SmartSE (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
See, I just learned about it tonight via the AP and all the stories from American media organizations about it (I had not heard about it before), and it's more localized to the South at this point. Yes, it is described the way you said it, though it's more older people than teens so far in the United States that have gotten it. MDPV was the one I found most in these stories so I linked to that as that article already described the 'bath salt' thing in detail. Certainly I'm sure this will come over heavy scrutiny later on though, so if you feel the need to redirect the hat to a more appropriate article, feel free. I just read a message on the talk page before I hatted about WMF 'hiding it under the rug' due to donors (certainly not the case), so I want to make sure we're neutral in this and we're not doing that. Nate • (chatter) 11:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah ok I see. I've been following it here in the UK for a long while now, as we seem a bit of ahead of the US in terms of designer drugs. I've changed the hatnote and added a new section to the designer drug article. I only have sources for the UK (I took these from mephedrone) but I'll try to find some more sources to discuss it from the US POV, though it may not be possible without OR/synth. Do you have a link to the article where you first read about it? I'll copy this over to the bath salts talk page, too just so it doesn't get repeated unneccesarily in the future, and so the IP editor know's for certain that there is no attempt whatsoever to censor anything. SmartSE (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear, I guess it's this article which is possibly one of the worst pieces of journalism I've seen in a while... Time to educate the AP with an email me thinks. SmartSE (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that fine piece of journalism led me here, along with all of the other alarmist pieces from American local news operations. Good call on the redirect/add to the article, it works for me. This is how the main Google news search for bath salts looks in the US right now. This PR from a hospital might be one of the better less alarmist sources for the MDPV. Nate • (chatter) 20:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Mark Stephens

How? its not obvious how to contact you when I want to? I want to understand why you cannot find references and what to thanks - sorry to put this on the page but I dont know how else to get through. happy to speak by phone if that helps (certainly would me(86.180.98.40 (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)).

I've replied on your talk page. SmartSE (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Rhodocene FAC

Hi SmartSE... I appreciated you taking the time to contribute your thoughts to the FAC on rhodocene. I was wondering whether you feel able to express support for the nomination, or indicate other areas needing work, or even opposition if you feel the article is not of FA standard. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I think I have responded to all the comments you made at the FAC - thanks for your input. EdChem (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Cyanotoxin

Yes, thanks Smartse. I have done a bit more more work on the article, which I think is almost there. Thanks also for the image you suggested. I've downloaded the image and added it to the article on algal blooms. But it is not clear what kind of bloom it is, and whether it is a cynobacterial bloom, so I haven't added it to cyanotoxins. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I should have checked the article before dropping you a note. Good point about the picture - the distinction between cyanobacteria + algae is quite confusing! It's pretty much there now, but there are a couple of sentences still lacking refs which need to be dealt with. I've got an idea for an alternative hook, which could be used if the hook isn't used with the picture which might be more unexpected which I'll put over at DYK. SmartSE (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I've tightened the references.--Epipelagic (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Cheers, I'll check it over in detail again tomorrow. SmartSE (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Merging articles

The helpful SuggestBot suggested that I merge Take-all into Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici. I know that you have said it is possible to have an article for the organism and another for the disease it causes, but in this case I think the merger is sensible. If I find more information on the fungal pathogen I can always add it in the process. I have been looking at Help:Merging and see how it can be done. Can I just go ahead and do the merger? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I agree that it is best to merge them. Merging has to be done by hand and yes it is best just to go straight ahead with it. In this case, it's probably best just to copy the taxobox over from Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici to Take-all and then make Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici a redirect, using by changing the page's contents to #REDIRECT [[Take-all]]. You should then add a {{Merged-from}} to the take all talk page to show you've merged it. Let me know if you run into any problems. SmartSE (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
When I came to do the merger I found that someone or somebot had already semi-done it. The taxobox had not been moved but the redirect already took place. I found that there were 2 versions of Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici, one with and one without the taxobox. On looking at this again, I see one has a full stop after "var" and the other does not. You can see this if you type the fungus name into the search box. Anyway I copied the taxobox, found an image and did the other things suggested on the Help:Merging page. Please could you inspect the result to see if all is well. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks good - well spotted about the two separate articles! I changed round the order of take-all and the fungus, as the start of the article should match the name of the article. The merge template has a place to add a diff showing the edit where the merge was made, so I added it for you. One other thing - because the image is CC licenced, you can crop the image to remove the number to make it prettier. If you don't have a suitable image editor to do it, I can for you if you want. SmartSE (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I wondered whether I was meant to do something with that "permanent difference" bit of the template. SuggestBot has given me two more mergers to practice on! I can crop the image myself. Can I do it in Wikimedia Commons, altering the image I already uploaded there or should I upload a new cropped image? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hello Smartse, The Utahraptor has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Good luck with your RfA. I hope it works out for you. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 23:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :D SmartSE (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Line spacing

Hi there, saw this edit to do with your RfA (which appears to be going excellently by the way). Anyway I saw that you removed a line from between the category and the stub template. Just thought I'd let you know that (for some strange reason) there are actually supposed to be two lines between the cats and the stub template. Definitely not a big deal at all, but I thought you might like to know. Happy editing, Jenks24 (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for the note - nice to see that there are still things to learn! I've added it back and I guess it does look better. It stub tag was beneath the cats so I sorted that out too. SmartSE (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Vernalization

I have been working on vernalization -- how would I ask other members of WikiProject Plants to check up on me? I have a (long-past) BA Biology but it's easy to mess up WP:WEIGHT just snooping through papers that Google spits out. I also would like to go for a DYK on it, but there is a problem with the length rule. When I found it, almost half its 2800 B was uncited ranting about Lysenkoism. Now it has 4116B of "readable prose" plus useful footnotes. I am a little confused anyway about whether you need to double an article or multiply it times 5 to do DYK. Anyway, with or without DYK it is a really enjoyable project. I saw your post on Anna F's talk page, came here to ask you about my own DYK issue, and saw your RfA -- good luck, I'm sure you'd be great! Sharktopustalk 19:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You can drop a note at WT:PLANTS to get someone else to have a look, but I can do it later on if you like. Regarding DYK, it needs to be a 5x expansion unless it is an unreferenced biography of a living person, and then it can be only 2x. WP:DYKCHECK is a useful tool to check article lengths - it's done on characters, rather than bytes and a quick check shows its still quite a long way off unfortunately. Oh and thanks, I hope so too. SmartSE (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that was all helpful! Sharktopustalk 22:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
No worries. It'll have to wait til tomorrow I'm afirad for a full read through, but a couple of things at first glance: genes should be italicised and I'm not sure if the massive quotes are needed in the references - it's not something I've seen in other articles before. Certainly much better than before though. SmartSE (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughts. I guess the long quotes are kind of dorky looking but when I have seen others use them I really liked them since they add relevant information from the WP:RS. I have a hard time forcing myself to erase stuff that I think somebody else might like to see. Sharktopustalk 02:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
As you might have noticed I got round to reading it - it looks good and I certainly learnt something new as I managed to miss that out in my degree. A couple of things again though about references: you might want to check Wikipedia:Citation tools I'm you're writing references out by hand, as there are tools which can help you do it for you. Regarding the quotes, I agree they are useful, but my concern was more about copyright issues, I'm not really sure about it, so I've dropped a note Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Quotes_in_references here where someone else should hopefully enlighten us. Finally, can you follow me round making articles whenever I add a redlink? SmartSE (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the help/feedback on vernalization, and I would be delighted to hound your redlinking looking for interesting places to make articles, such as Gustav Gassner which I have been plugging away at and would now like to think of a hook for. Sharktopustalk 23:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I was going to say that the fact his textbook is still used was good, but then I noticed the picture which has appeared. Since sex sells, especially at DYK, how about: ... that the German plant physiologist Gustav Gassner studied smut? One thing you could do, is to cite the "The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition (1970-1979)" rather than thefreedictionary.com since this is the original source of the text. This: Arnold Reisman (2006). Turkey's modernization: refugees from Nazism and Atatürk's vision. New Academia Publishing, LLC. pp. 78–. ISBN 9780977790883. Retrieved 27 January 2011. looks as if it has some good extra details in too. I'm quite a fan of redlinks so you might have trouble keeping up, feel free to dip into the unstriked bits of my to do list though if you want - it always seems to get longer, rather than shorter! SmartSE (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

<---Love that idea, how about if YOU nominate it at DYK so that you get credit too, after all you did think up the hook. Maybe even a double fact, " ... that the German plant physiologist Gustav Gassner, whose 1931 book remains a popular reference, studied smut?" Sharktopustalk 23:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I can if you like, but I'm not too bothered about the badge, regardless, it'll have to be tomorrow if I do. What would be really good though, is if we could find out whether his text book has anything about smut in it, but I don't think we're going to find that unfortunately (it's a good thing that it isn't a BLP too). SmartSE (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
You don't need no steenking badges? Maybe some day I will feel that way too. Still waiting for my first DYK to get queued up--does one get any wikiboxbadgegoldstarotherthing when that really happens? Sharktopustalk 01:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, they start to clutter up pages eventually... That's a nice first DYK btw, good to start with an odd one. I'm afraid that there are no stars involved yet, only an orange box. SmartSE (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
An orange box? I am delighted to get an orange box! We Sharktopi are pretty indiscriminate in our enthusiasm for unconsidered trifles. In more mature comment, Moonriddengirl notified me about policy on long quotes, so I have been going back to my earlier contributions and cleaning up what I did in ignorance. Sharktopustalk 15:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thats good then. I saw MRG's note as well - she is the queen of copyright and I'm glad she could advise. SmartSE (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

<--I submitted Gustav Gassner and listed you as a coauthor so , no, you can't review it. Trying to figure out whether to drop the picture or not. Sharktopustalk 22:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Graffiti in New York

I was going to pull it out, but stopped: the article is rewritten, with better refs and 8400 bytes of prose which is close to 5x expansion of split content. It might be less, but I don't want to get harsh on PFHLai and Piotrus, both of whom do so much positive here. PFHLai is an old-time admin and his promotion silently means he verified and backs up the promotion. Is it Ok with you if I just write a message to them and you withdraw WP:ERRORS thread. Your call is not incorrect, its just the situation is not to be solved by drastic measures. Materialscientist (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok then. Would be nice if you withdraw your WP:ERRORS post (moving it to WT:DYK or any other talk is fine). This post would urge a main-page admin to go check, but realistically, such things are not decided there. Again, your comment is very valid and I'll get to the authors, its just the situation .. Materialscientist (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I've started learning wikipedia only after RFA :) Don't hesitate to ask then. To this case: I've briefly talked to Piotrus, and its none of his fault - he was Ok to drop the nom and did not mean to be rude at T:TYK. PFHLai promoted it regardless, and I left your post at WP:ERRORS mainly for him. Anyway, he promoted it, taking responsibility for lacking expansion, it is a valid decision, and he is a hard-working DYK and main page admin (making mistakes too, as all of us). Thus I am pretty sure I shouldn't pull it off, but you will find your way. I am also sure PFHLai won't wheelwar on this, but some other admin could. Such things are decided by consensus. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: DYK error

I hope my comment at the T:TDYK regarding the review was not uncivil in any way. I think you are doing a good job reviewing and helping out! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't think that at all, I was just a bit surprised when I saw the article about to get to the main page when I thought that I had said it shouldn't but it's not biggee. And thanks - you've reminded me I need to get over there and do some work! SmartSE (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

100+/0/meh

Is it too early to congratulate you? You broke 100 supports, have no opposes, and no neutrals leaning on oppose. You've had the cleanest sailing since Panyd's RfA. Here's to hoping you don't have any skeletons in your closet and don't decide to burn down Wikipedia before the RfA closes, otherwise it'd make this message look silly. Otherwise, congratulations! Sven Manguard Wha? 03:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't have any skeletons lurking AFAIK. Btw, the 1000px .png is best. I promise to never try and turn flash animations of mine into .gifs, I fear that would really mess with your browser! SmartSE (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
You think we'll get to 200? Hey, who are you going to block first with your new tools? ;) Drmies (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not holding my breath to 200 - interest seems to have peaked :( I can practice my aim on you if you like Dr. but this user's been really getting on my nerves, so I think they'll be the first to feel the hammer. SmartSE (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I'd better do it whilst listening to youtube.com/watch?v=RLZOXw6RUqE as well. SmartSE (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I love that album. Yeah, that dude, pure vandalism, and an SPA of course--and how productive was that edit? You know what, it's probably a sock. Get CU clearance and go fishing. Not that that's allowed, of course, but no one reads your talk page anyway. I'm just a peon, and I almost double that easily. Hasta la vista! Drmies (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a good one - think it was one of my first CDs... youtube.com/watch?v=PNB59TG8Ic0 might be more appropriate for now though. Ever heard anything from this side of the pond? Try ?v=AUZlH7N-24I I know - think I'll start a thread at ANI, there's only so many blocks that can be given before a ban is in order. You have a good point, but per edit, I have more views :D We best be careful or we may get told off. How about finding me a useful link so I can learn about comma usage? SmartSE (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

<--Which commas--British or American? I believe in the serial comma and have a hard time refraining from introducing them to BE articles. This is American (BE does not always believe in no. 3), but note no. 4: that's one of the most common comma errors I see in WP articles, with no. 9 probably in second place. Taskforce? I left hip hop alone after Ice-T joined SVU, but it sounds pretty good. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Bluhhhh - it was bad enough when I just had one version of English to use! I do quite like serial commas though actually, but I tend to just follow my instinct rather than any rules. So if I write "In June 2010" should I put a comma before "such and such happened" or not? There ain't much decent hip-hop being made now, you decided to call it a day at a good time! Tell you something completely different worth listening too: The Boy Bands Have Won by the same people who bought us tubthumping (well, sort of - you would never know it). SmartSE (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Simon Higgins

‘Basically, we would need to have published book reviews and ideally an article written about your writing by a newspaper or magazine.’

...thank you so much for that helpful response. Below please find a selection of what (I hope) you need, which I am sure you’ll have no problem verifying as to sources. My apologies that some of the on-line posted reviews are (like many literature industry sites) on clusters that require a subscriber or visitor log-in, but I imagine that some of your editors or researchers will have member access anyway, as it’s where many oft-quoted Twilight and Harry Potter reviews, for instance, get farmed from. All the hardcopy newspaper and magazine reviews quoted should be easily confirmable by presscom search or from each paper’s/magazine’s own archives. Thanks again and warmest wishes...and apologies for the size of the below infodump. :)

Simon Higgins www.simonhiggins.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Literati666 (talk • contribs)

Hi Simon, I've moved what you placed on my talk page to User:Smartse/simon_higgins for the moment. I'll try to look at it later and let you know if you meet our notability requirements. SmartSE (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I've had a look, but I'm not entirely sure if the more specific guideline for authors is met, or the alternative general guideline as I think we need articles about you rather than just your books. Sorry that I got that wrong yesterday, I'll see if I can find someone who knows more about these things to double check. SmartSE (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Simon Higgins

Hi again Smartse. Sorry if I dumped all that data in the wrong spot, and for not signing my last correspondence with the four tildes - forgot, bit of a luddite I'm afraid. :) Will work on that. Just to clarify; the articles I cited for you ARE about me, my life, work history, passions, philosophy etc, but -understandably of course as writing is my main claim to media coverage- also mention or variously discuss aspects of one or more of my books to one degree or another. I guess it's a case of try finding an article about Stephen King, for instance, that verifies his former teaching career but doesn't mention at least one of his books or film deals, it's that kind of intrinsic connection. If it would help you, there are also (earlier) newspaper articles about me either in my capacity as a Police Prosecutor or as a private investigator (by then an ex-policeman) which don't mention my writing career (as it hadn't started at the time). One example, with a photograph, is 'Courting a New View of the Defence' (Headline) 'By his own admission, Simon Higgins has crossed the fence' (jockey quote): The Adelaide Advertiser, Monday, November 14th, 1994, page 6. I could also send you scannings of the articles themselves, if this would help clarify by way of showing the actual content. It also wouldn't be a problem finding an interested (professional) volunteer to write, or at least start, the article itself if that would save you assigning the task, as there are publishers, publicists, agents etc. who would happily do it..my only concerns are that a. I don't want to write it myself, and b. whoever does, gets it right this time from the beginning, and hence wastes no more editorial time on your behalf. If it's of any assistance, various short biographies of me exist online on my publisher's WebPages, in their author biog sections, i.e. Random House http://www.randomhouse.com.au/Author/Higgins,%20Simon Little Brown in the US http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/kids_authors_Simon-Higgins-%281527701%29.htm Pulp Fiction Press http://www.pulpfictionpress.com.au/tomodachi/simon.htm Please let me know if there are any other resources you need. Thanks again, I really appreciate your ongoing help. :) Simon Literati666 (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC) www.simonhiggins.net


Free Studio

Hi, Smartse! i've written an article about Free Studio. It has been given a tag "advert" and "coi" recently. I've made several changes in the article and want to let you know about it. If you consider any statements as not neutral, could you point me to them? I also consider the "coi" tab inappropriate as the article highlights both pros and cons of this software. Most (but not all) wikipedia articles about software do not cover both aspects. I would be very glad to receive your piece of advice on this matter. Thanks and have a good day! Noelle pozzi (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Noelle, thanks for your note. The reason I tagged it is because it doesn't look like an encyclopedia article at the moment. It looks more like a product specification which is why I tagged it as an advert. Your changes are an improvement, but one major thing that needs working on is turning the bullet points into prose. The COI tag is appropriate at the moment, since you appear to have a COI and are so far the main contributor and it needs to be throughly reviewed before removing the tag. I'm a bit concerned that the parts that are not referenced are based on your personal knowledge too, which isn't permissable. Unless certain features have been mentioned in the reviews, it would be best to remove them from the programs list - this is something much better dealt with at the FS website, rather than here. It would also be good if you could follow the tips that Fleet Command left on your talk page. I will try to look at it in more detail soon and do some more clean up, but if you can try it would be good. SmartSE (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Very helpful! I will revise the content according to your tips. Btw, it seems that there is one more contributor on the Talk:Free_Studio regarding the CSD G4 tag. User:Ckatz doesn't seem to answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noelle pozzi (talk • contribs) 21:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I noticed. I can't see the previous page, but I trust Ckatz's judgement that it was similar to the current page. Another admin will review it shortly and take the appropriate action. As hard as I am trying to assume good faith I'm afraid that the "one more contributor" line isn't very persuasive. Time will tell. SmartSE (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
It would be great to recover an old article in some way and see its debates and the contents. It will cleap up the issue. Thanks Noelle pozzi (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
That'll have to be left to an admin for the moment. SmartSE (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I have compared the two. They were not identical, but they were similar enough that the new one read as a reworking of the old one to make its ostensible subject different, but still retaining the same essential content. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks JBW. Noelle - if you decide to recreate it, do it at User:Noelle pozzi/sandbox first and request feedback at Wikipedia:Deletion review. SmartSE (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 28 January 2011



This is the first issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program newsletter. Please read it! It has important information about the the current wave of classes, instructions and advice, and other news about the ambassador program.



Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested to know

that User:DMSBel with whom we are both acquainted from cum shot is appealing his topic ban at WP:RFAR. I see a bunch of involved editors were notified, but apparently only those who participated in his ANI ban discussion. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for the note. I'd already noticed it and the ANI thread, but everything looks as if it is being taken care of, so I think they can do with out my $0.02. SmartSE (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

For lots & lots of stuff in many different places

Valued Contributor Award
You have been identified as a valued contributor and your efforts are appreciated. We are honored to present you with the Valued Contributor Award and we thank you for donating your time, expertise and effort to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. Thanks. (more details)

Just wanted to say thanks for everything - Hydroxonium (H3O+) 12:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much SmartSE (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ebionites sources page

For what it might be worth, a review of the article talk page will reveal that when I copied only what I considered the "essential" information, Ovadyah challenged it on the basis that he assumed I was misrepresenting the sources, and not including information supporting Tabor and others. It was only thereafter that I made it word for word on the encyclopediac articles. Even there, however, Ovadyah challenged them. Had there been a reasonable and I think policy and guideline based response to that information, the page would have already been deleted, because the reliable sources would have been recognized as such. FWIW, I myself find the article to be comparatively unimportant in and of itself - however, there is to my eyes very clear evidence that at least one other editor is using it for soapboxing purposes. Having said all that, I personally expect the information to be deleted myself upon resolution of the existing problem. I am still however curious how Ovadyah, whose request for input on the Eisenman material first drew my attention to the article, is now supporting the inclusion of that information, even though there have been no independent reliable sources as per WP:RS which support him, and at least one or two which clearly say his theories have been rejected. However, I do agree that there does seem to be no interest in addressing these matters on the part of others, whether they can produce evidence supporting their material or not, and think that if the mediation goes nowhere, I may be forced to take other, perhaps more effective, measures. If that is the case, one way or another, I could probably use the restored page as evidence. Please note that I have asked Michael and Ovadyah for any evidence supporting their material repeatedly, and they have yet to produce any indepenent RS which support Eisenman or Tabor since their publication. One would think, if the theories were creditable, there would be such, at least I would think so. Anyway, please feel free to act as you see fit. John Carter (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a preposterous accusation. I never accused John Carter of misrepresenting anything, whereas he recently took me to COIN (archived with no action taken). Let's see some diffs to prove it. But all that is beside the point. There is clearly a copyright violation at User:John_Carter/Ebionites that needs to be cleaned up. Please take care of it. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply John, there is obviously a reason that you've collected the sources, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a copyright violation. I'd prefer for you to do it yourself since it is in your userspace and ideally revdel it too, but if you don't then I will have to myself. Your dispute is way beyond me I'm afraid, but it is reasonably clear that there is no obvious COI in the sense that the guideline is written. I suggest you seek some form of dispute resolution where you will hopefully find someone more experienced in such matters. SmartSE (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Please note that Ovadyah and Michael have both on their own pages and in the archives of the article's talk page indicated that they have a pronounced leaning to support the views of neo-Ebionite groups which havee no claim to notability. Please note also how they have both done everything in their power to stonewall any improvements which do not agree with the clear agendas they are both pushing. Of course, it clearly is not in either of their interests to have any content which indicates just how flawed the article as it stands currently is. It was on that basis that I first created the page. The article is currently undergoing mediation, and, if the stonewalling continues there, I believe that there will be sufficient basis for a request for arbitration. However, I believe that at leat having the material available for either the mediation or arbitration would be reasonable. On that basis, I think that what I will do is just delete it, but not revdel, so that the information from the majority of the available reliable sources as per WP:RS will be available in those dispute resolution procedures. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Resource Request

Could you be more specefic about what you need from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Julian_Assange_hacking or if you still need it?Smallman12q (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't really be more specific unfortunately. To be honest though, it looks as if now his autobio has been released, the same information could be found more easily in there. I'll strike through the REX request. SmartSE (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Merging

I have done a merger between Rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus and Rabbit haemorrhagic disease. Please could you check to see if I have got it right. Is the "history" bit correct or have I captured the wrong URL? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Almost, but the link should show the edit where you made the merge (this one. If you go to the history after the merge and select the version before and after and click compare, you'll get to the diff you need. SmartSE (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Right, I have done that. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smartse/archive_6&oldid=1139336414"