User talk:StarryGrandma

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

I see what you mean[edit]

about Jane Rosen. There is no doubt in my mind that she is notable and that there should be a article about her, but the while thing (article) was pretty much done by one editor, User:Weiwillwang, who appears to be a new account and has only worked on this one article. The references that I have looked at also seem to be ones that might have a financial stake in advancing her reputation. A sticky wicket to be sure. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yet, it sounds like it may have been written by a gallery. But the interview and award are enough. I left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women artists in hopes of getting someone to clean it up. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I saw your note at the Women's artist project that's what got me butting in. Still the cut & paste stuff needs to be dealt with in some manner, and if it is removed, there is no article, just a list of shows, etc. Also lifted from somewhere.
As the King says in Anna and the King of Siam, "It is a puzzlement." Carptrash (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Oops, forgot to check for copy-paste. Ironic, given the notice from AfC just above. I guess the thing is to clean it up and leave a stub, with her CV and website in the external links. Are you willing to do that? If so, thanks. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I have a cup-runnith-over situation with my editing and life in general, so won't do much here but i see that the person who wrote the article in now a blue link, a very good thing in my book, and is adding more sources. Another good thing.Carptrash (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

20:55:49, 21 January 2015 review of submission by Millstei[edit]

Hi StarryGrandma. Thank you for reviewing my article, however, I am somewhat confused by it. The review states that Wikipedia does not publish theorems or "how to's". However, the article does not describe how to do anything. Also, there are many Wikipedia articles about statistical theorems ( and statistical inequalities ( that include proofs, for instance (just to name a few), there is Chebyshev's inequality (, Bernoulli's inequality (, the Cramer-Rao lower bound (ér–Rao_bound), and many more. Would it help if I changed the section title from "theorem" to "probabilistic statement", like in Chebyshev's inequality? -Thanks again. Millstei (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Millstei (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are rignt. I see that math articles do contain proofs, though there has been a lot of discussion on this (whether only notable proofs should be here). Just look at Category:Articles containing proofs and List of mathematical proofs. I wish this stuff had been easier to find when I went looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics while reviewing your article.
Revise the article so that "Binomial_sum_variance_inequality" is defined in the first sentence of the article as it is in the articles you gave as examples. Look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs for how to arrange the proof. Calling the section Proof should be fine. Then I will approve the article. It will be helpful if you can link it into other articles on the same topic, so it doesn't stand alone as an orphan. Happy editing. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I will revise as you suggest and submit when I am happy with the changes. Regarding linking it into other articles, I assume that I can only do that after it is approved. Millstei (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi StarryGrandma. I have submitted changes -- please take a look when you get a chance. -Thank you! Millstei (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Request on 09:31:25, 2 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Phill.Christie[edit]

Hi StarryGrandma, I looked at the web page that I used as a reference and that you associated with copyrighted material. Indeed you are correct,as the website says material cannot be re-used without permission. If I contacted the DSP Valley website and asked for permission to include thier article in a wikipedia article, would that be sufficient to allow the article to be published?

Phill.Christie (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Phill.Christie (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

To begin with, the article is great on the DSP Valley site, but it is written as an informative essay, not as an encyclopedia article. See Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Information style and tone. The article's tone needs to be formal, impersonal, and dispassionate, not characteristics organizations want on their web pages. Secondly, it is not enough to ask permission to use text from another source on Wikipedia. The copyright holder must be willing to let the material be much more widely used. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. It is better to rewrite material in encyclopedic form.
There is another problem with the article. To have an article a topic must already be well-known (that is, notable). There have to be papers, articles, and/or books independent of the original source to show this. I can't find "substream innovation" used anyplace else than in your article, though my view inside trade publications is limited. Once it is widely used there can be an article, but it is too soon. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Request on 22:33:58, 3 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Blake.gillespie[edit]

I'm following up on my rejection. I wanted to point out that I have 2 (50%) citations from an news source, not from my University. Additionally, I have another citation (#4) from the CSU Chancellor's office, not my own University Campus. When I look at a colleague's page:


I note that the references there are no more extra-ordinary than my own, and so submit that my notability should perhaps be deemed high enough to merit an entry. Thanks!

Blake.gillespie (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Blake.gillespie (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

We probably do have articles on professors who aren't well-known enough to be here. They don't all get seen as created, but end up being questioned later. But that's not an argument for adding another. The Sean Anderson (scientist) is another case completely. He was portrayed in a movie seen by millions of people. That puts him in the entertainment area also, which has different criteria.
Wikipedia is like having multiple encyclopedias all in one place: Popular culture, sports, aviation, medicine, science (articles get quite technical here), geographic (every organized town in the world). On the academic side the criteria are strict (hot discussions occur at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)), in part to prevent it from becoming something like LinkedIn. An article about an academic should talk about his work, with references that show what other people in the field have said about it. Some don't because whoever wrote the article didn't understand enough to write about it. But in yours you haven't said anything about your research. I know what you worked on because I looked up your papers on Google Scholar.
I'm sorry not to be more helpful. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Sexuality of Lewis Carroll[edit]

Thanks for your comments when declining this new article. I've been editing for getting on for 8 years now, and there are still WP rules I've never heard of, but I've never created a new article before. However, I was a little confused by your saying that the introduction reads like a magazine article and that there were conclusion in there by me. I used the beginning of Sexuality of William Shakespeare as a guide for how to start the article, and that reads in a very similar way to me, as does Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln. Also, I don't see where the lack of facts is shown. There are three points made:

The Sexuality of Lewis Carroll has been the subject of recurring debate. Scholars and biographers have argued about whether or not he was a paedophile or at least had paedophilic tendencies.[1][2]

- this is surely a fact: see the refs.

Lewis Carroll, the pen name of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (1832 - 1898), was an English writer, mathematician, logician, Anglican deacon and photographer. His most famous writings are Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and its sequel Through the Looking-Glass.

- surely factual.

However, it is mainly his photographs of naked or near-naked children - particularly girls - that have caused concern. The fact that Carroll is one of the most famous children's authors in English literature means that his sexual proclivities towards children have been the subject of heated debates for many years.[3]

This is the point of the whole article. He did take those photographs; he is a famous children's author; and his sexual proclivities have been debated. What am I missing? Myrvin (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Myrvin. In a magazine article the first paragraph serves as an introduction, drawing the reader in and explaining why the article was written. In an encyclopedia article, the first paragraph is a summary of the article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The first paragraph of Sexuality of William Shakespeare and its table of contents provide a good example.
The sexuality of William Shakespeare has been the subject of recurring debate. It is known from public records that he married Anne Hathaway and they had three children; scholars have analysed their relationship through these documents, in particular through the bequests to her in Shakespeare's will. There has been speculation that he had affairs with other women, based on contemporary writings of others anecdotally recounting such affairs and possibly on the "Dark Lady" figure in his sonnets. Scholars have also speculated that he was bisexual, based on an analysis of the sonnets, many of which, including Sonnet 18 "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day", are love poems addressed to a man, the "Fair Lord", and which contain plays on words relating to sexual desire between men.
1 Marriage
2 Possible affairs with women
3 Possible attraction to men
4 References
5 Additional reading
That opening paragraph is a series of statements that summarize the contents of the sections of the article. There are no references. Those will be in the article sections. There is no description of William Shakespeare as a playwright. This is a sub-article of Shakespeare, and the wikilink in the first paragraph is enough.
In your opening paragraph, "The sexuality of Lewis Carroll has been the subject of recurring debate." is fine. In the second sentence, leave out anything about "arguing". "Analyzed" is better. Leave out everything about his background. The final sentence, "The fact that Carroll is one of the most famous children's authors in English literature means that his sexual proclivities towards children have been the subject of heated debates for many years." is what makes the opening sound like a magazine article. Follow the first sentence with sentences summarizing what the sections of the article say. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah I think I'm beginning to see. I put that last sentence in because of the idea that I should "say something important about the topic". Words to that effect are from the help you get when creating a new article. As you say, I suppose it's meant to make the article notable. I see that wp:lead#elements of the lead says "The lead should establish significance, include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more"; and , at the top, " the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows". Myrvin (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, I've had another go: Draft:Sexuality of Lewis Carroll. Myrvin (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

12:41:05, 19 February 2015 review of submission by Blake.gillespie[edit]

I'm asking why this page does not merit inclusion, since it now includes references external to my institution. The criteria seem to indicate that this is sufficient. Similar, allowed, pages meet no more this same criterion. e.g.,

Blake.gillespie (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. There are nine numbered criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria. You will need references showing you meet at least one of them. Winning an award from your own university is not enough. Yes, there are articles on Wikipedia for people who do not meet these standards, but only because no one has gotten around to removing them yet.
You have essentially created a directory listing, your degrees, positions, and awards. Nothing about your research or what you did to get those awards. Wikipedia does not serve as a directory of academic personnel. There are other locations for that. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Request on 22:01:50, 26 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Karochka70[edit]

Hi StarryGrandma,

Thank you for reviewing my post! I'd still like to see a page created for Carol Brown Goldberg. I think although the artist is most extensively known locally, she does have a national and international presence (she's had national and international exhibits). Perhaps if I added in references to Goldberg from articles written about her in the Washington Post? Although the Washington Post is a "local" newspaper, it still has a national and world-wide I think that would show more of Goldberg's prominence and emerging prominence as well. Please let me know if that would make Goldberg more notable and worthy of a page. Thanks!

Also, you can see what's been written about Goldberg in the Washington Post here: Karochka70 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Karochka70 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

21:10:34, 2 March 2015 review of submission by Crobben[edit]

Dear reviewers,

Sensor-based sorting is applied in four business streams: mining, recycling and food. Therefore I have created a mining specific topic in which I have obtained my PhD (you find the title in the references). I volunteer to update the sensor-based sorting article to reflect the terminology and application in the market segments to adress your comment in the next weeks. Since sensor-based ore sorting is a very polupar main stream topic I kindly ask you to accept my contribution.

best regards from germany


Crobben (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Body plan[edit]

Hi, and thanks for your 'see also' in Body plan. The argument for Precambrian body plans is important to the article and ought therefore to go in the main text, suitably cited, near where the Cambrian explosion is discussed, instead of a 'see also' link. I'd be really glad if you could do that. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

References help[edit]

Hi StarryGrandma. I noticed you are currently performing the essential task of repairing broken references. Have you tried User:ProveIt GT yet? It makes referencing so much easier. You can enable it at your Preferences under Gadgets. With ProveIt, you can add new references, or fix old ones. Regards,– Gilliam (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Gilliam. It looks great; I will try it. I find that most of my time spent on a fix is in determining how the error came in and what else in the text has to be fixed up too. But most of the articles also have bare url references, invisible bare urls, and other stuff. This looks like a great way to easily fix much of that while I'm there. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Refill can fix the bare refs for you automatically, will save you lots of time and let you focus on the things that need manual intervention. - in the manual are some instructions for adding this tool into your toolbox links so its easily accessible from every page. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Gaijin42, I'm trying that too. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I ran into the User talk:Zhaofeng Li/reFill#Converting various characters to "#" thing. More experimenting necessary. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ever get things figured out? Gaijin42 (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

May 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Haiti may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, StarryGrandma. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by StarryGrandma (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Thanks for your help on John Lechleiter article.[edit]

I just couldn't get the reference to stop being red, so thanks.Rich (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

New to the Teahouse, seeking Commons image upload guidance[edit]

Hello StarryGrandma. I've been tinkering and adding links for a few years now, but only a few edits every couple months, so for all intents and purposes I'm still relatively "new." I just consulted the Teahouse for the first time, looking for the proper way to categorize images I'm trying to upload to Wikimedia Commons, however I don't want to mess it up. So I have 2 problems/questions:

  1. What is the proper way I should categorize my photo of a view from a hotel in Międzyzdroje? I can't seem to find exactly the answer I'm looking for on any of the Commons:Categories "help" pages
  2. What is the proper way to ask a question at the Teahouse? Is there a "chat" type feature to ask whoever's available, or is it just posting on people's Talk pages?

Thanks for any help you can provide. Bush6984 (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bush6984. I don't know enough about images to help you with Commons categories. To ask a question at the Teahouse, go to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions and click on the blue "Ask a question" button. Teahouse hosts watch the page and answer questions. Hosts have various areas of expertise and one or another will have an answer. Hope this helps. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Ahhh, thanks for the help! I guess I was too busy looking for something tiny and nitty-gritty that I overlooked the huge "Ask a question" button! Oops! Now it makes sense. I also think I trial-and-error figured out how to categorize and properly upload my images. Thanks again for your guidance, I appreciate the friendly help! Bush6984 (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

About Sadi Carnot[edit]

William A. Kelley (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Hi, thanks for your comments regarding my submission on Sadi Carnot's book. I am useless at navigating the talk pages on Wiki, and I have question or 3 to clarify what you are suggesting and what Wikipedia wants etc. If you have a few minutes, i can be reached at bill1 at Feel free to make public any correspondence you choose. I can communicate adequately via email, but I'm not sure what is appropriate and not for me to post here. In any case thanks for taking the time to comment on my two article submissions. William A. Kelley (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi William A. Kelley. I am happy to comment on your articles and provide what help I can.
We can talk about your article here on my talk page. I went back to my physics texts to refresh my mind on thermodynamics. The best reference I found in my old textbooks is from Feynman's lectures:
The link in the reference is to Chapter 44 at the Cal Tech website. Then I did a lot of reading about engines.
First I will try to explain why what you have written is not material for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia does not publish original work. Everything in the article needs to have been published somewhere else first. Wikipedia editors do not include their own opinions or commentary in articles. The guideline is at Wikipedia:No original research. However you can adapt some of the information and use it in other articles. I am making some suggestions here.
Your first topic, that authors don't use the correct references for Carnot and following work in thermodynamics, isn't an encyclopedia topic. It is an analysis for a history of science journal article.
It does matter, of course, whether or not Wikipedia articles reference the works correctly. From what I can see in the Wikipedia articles Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire, the longer discussion of the book in Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot#Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire, Carnot heat engine, and Carnot cycle, they are clear that Carnot's work was expanded on by others. However, the article Carnot's theorem (thermodynamics) just says "developed in 1824 by Sadi Carnot" and does not have a history section. It would be very useful to write the history for that article showing just what Carnot's findings were and how they evolved into the formulas we use today as the ideas of absolute temperature and entropy were developed. In this case you would need references to sources that provide the history.
In your second topic, you present your own analysis of the Carnot cycle and efficiency. Any analysis in a Wikipedia article needs to have been published elsewhere first before being included in with the reference or references to other publications. The same is true for examples. Also I do not think your analysis is completely correct. The Carnot cycle (and Carnot engine) has a special place in thermodynamics because it is such a simple example and because Carnot's analysis of it was the first statement of what became the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The Carnot cycle and other reversible cycles (Stirling is one) in thermodynamics are idealized engines, frictionless and perfectly insulated. Real engines and real cycles are not reversible. The Carnot limit on engine efficiency does not depend on all other engines not being reversible. Instead it is the limit imposed by the Second Law on the amount of work that can be extracted.
The calculations in your table showing that the Carnot efficiency is not a limit are not correct. Since you do not give references, I cannot tell where you got the numbers. Combined cycle plants are using multiple cycles, each limited by the Carnot efficiency but in combination using further cycles to extract energy from the waste heat of preceding cycles. Even more useful are cogeneration power plants producing both heat and electricity, where the "waste heat" becomes one of the energy outputs. A compressed air engine does not operate between 300K and 300K. It uses the expansion of the compressed gas to drive the engine, and the gas ends up cooling. The Carnot efficiency depends on the temperature difference between the initial and final stages of the expansion. The air may first be heated by the engine or an auxiliary motor, increasing the initial temperature before it reaches the piston.
A lot of engineering ingenuity went into improving engines to get around the limitations of the Carnot efficiency, and I do not think this is covered very well in Wikipedia. The history of this would provide very useful additions to existing engine articles. Both the compound engine article and the energy efficiency article could also use more work. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Assistance editing an article...[edit]

Would it be possible for you to take a look at this article?

I know you looked at the one on Christian Study Centers and were extremely helpful on that.

Any thoughts with this article of how to condense, remove, or add anything before submitting it?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Mellifluus (talkcontribs) 17:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Ken Pugh[edit]

I saw that you voted to keep this article, but the final vote was not in favor of it. I was heading off the grid when I saw the deletion notice and added some stuff that was not viewed as relevant. I have since created some citations from scholarly papers, but the article was deleted before they could be added.

I presume once an article is deleted it cannot be resurrected. If that's the case, is there any way that the article could be entirely dropped, so it doesn't show up as deleted? It looks worse for Ken to have something deleted than for it not to show up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houstonishere (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Houstonishere (talkcontribs) 20:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Houstonishere. An article can be written again. If he becomes better known he can certainly have an article. The opinion was that even though he has written books, the references didn't show that he had enough influence in the field to be well-enough known to have an article. You will need more that just citations to his papers. You need sources that talk about him and show that he and his work have been influential.
A deleted article is nearly invisible. Google searches will not return anything from Wikipedia to indicate that an article about him has been deleted. Only if someone searches for an article inside Wikipedia for Ken Pugh (computer programmer), parentheses and all, will they see it. I removed the note about him at the top of the other Ken Pugh's article. Distinguishing notes like that can only refer to existing articles. So it is not likely that anyone will see the deletion unless they are trying to write a new one. Then they will have the information about the removal of the previous article so that a new article will not run into the same problems. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It's still showing up on bing and google. It seems the name of the page has changed to Kenneth Pugh and there is also the original Ken Pugh with computer programmer. Houstonishere (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, they cache pages. I recreated the deleted redirect page Kenneth Pugh as a redirect to the experimental psychologist. That should make the deleted page disappear from Google and Bing searches once they crawl the pages again. On Google clicking it now goes to the other Ken Pugh's page. There doesn't seem to be a problem with Yahoo. Let's give it a couple of days and see what happens. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Patricia Anne Johnston for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patricia Anne Johnston is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Anne Johnston until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Surfing may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "()"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Musgrave non-dead-centre engine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marine engine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom evidence[edit]

I regret to say that I don't remember seeing your name anywhere before. Having said that, I think you did a decent job in your presentation on the evidence phase. Granted, I have no particular desire to see your name (or those of anyone but the arbs, actually) on any future cases, but if I ever do see your name again anywhere I at least have a positive memory of it now. John Carter (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

New Companies delsort category[edit]

Hi StarryGrandma: Just a heads up that a new deletion sorting page was created on 16 October 2015 for companies, located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies. Thanks for your work in performing deletion sorting on Wikipedia. North America1000 16:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

New Disability delsort category[edit]

Hi: Just a heads up that a new deletion sorting page was created on 19 October 2015 for Disability-related articles, located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disability. Thanks for your work in performing deletion sorting on Wikipedia. North America1000 18:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed[edit]

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

Jabir ibn Hayyan[edit]

There are many sources which show that Jabir ibn Hayyan is a Persian AyOuBoXe (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi AyOuBoXe. There are also many sources which show that he is an Arab. The consensus arrived on the talk pages is to use both. See Talk:Jābir ibn Hayyān/Archive 2 for example. A couple of times a month someone removes either Persian or Arab, and those of us who watch the page put it back. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


--E. J. Holmyard (ed.) The Arabic Works of Jabir ibn Hayyan, translated by Richard Russell in 1678. New York, E. P. Dutton (1928); Also Paris, P.Geuther.

--S.N. Nasr, "Life Sciences, Alchemy and Medicine", The Cambridge History of Iran, Cambridge, Volume 4, 1975, p. 412

-William R. Newman, Gehennical Fire: The Lives of George Starkey, an American Alchemist in the Scientific Revolution, Harvard University Press, 1994. p.94: "According to traditional bio-bibliography of Muslims, Jabir ibn Hayyan was a Persian alchemist who lived at some time in the eight century and wrote a wealth of books on virtually every aspect of natural philosophy"

-William R. Newman, The Occult and Manifest Among the Alchemist, in F. J. Ragep, Sally P Ragep, Steven John Livesey, Tradition, Transmission, Transformation: Proceedings of Two Conferences on pre-Modern science held at University of Oklahoma, Brill, 1996/1997, p.178: "This language of extracting the hidden nature formed an important lemma for the extensive corpus associated with the Persian alchemist Jabir ibn Hayyan"

-Henry Corbin, "The Voyage and the Messenger: Iran and Philosophy", Translated by Joseph H. Rowe, North Atlantic Books, 1998. p.45: "The Nisba al-Azdin certainly does not necessarily indicate Arab origin. Geber seems to have been a client of the Azd tribe established in Kufa"

-Tamara M. Green, "The City of the Moon God: Religious Traditions of Harran (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World)", Brill, 1992. p.177: "His most famous student was the Persian *Jabir ibn Hayyan (b. circa 721 C.E.), under whose name the vast corpus of alchemical writing circulated in the medieval period in both the east and west, although many of the works attributed to Jabir have been demonstrated to be likely product of later Ismaili' tradition."

-David Gordon White, "The Alchemical Body: Siddha Traditions in Medieval India", University of Chicago Press, 1996. p.447

-William R. Newman, Promethean Ambitions: Alchemy and the Quest to Perfect Nature, University of Chicago Press, 2004. p.181: "The corpus ascribed to the eight-century Persian sage Jabir ibn Hayyan.."

-Wilbur Applebaum, The Scientific revolution and the foundation of modern science, Greenwood Press, 1995. p.44: "The chief source of Arabic alchemy was associated with the name, in its Latinized form, of Geber, an eighth-century Persian."

-Neil Kamil, Fortress of the Soul: Violence, Metaphysics, and Material Life in the Huguenots New World, 1517-1751 (Early America: History, Contextulture), JHU Press, 2005. p.182: "The ninth-century Persian alchemist Jabir ibn Hayyan, also known as Geber, is accurately called pseudo-Geber since most of the works published under this name in the West were forgeries"

-Aleksandr Sergeevich Povarennykh, Crystal Chemical Classification of Minerals, Plenum Press, 1972, v.1, ISBN 0-306-30348-5, p.4: "The first to give separate consideration to minerals and other inorganic substances were the following: The Persian alchemist Jabir (721-815)..."

-George Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science, Pub. for the Carnegie Institution of Washington, by the Williams & Wilkins Company, 1931, vol.2 pt.1, page 1044: "Was Geber, as the name would imply, the Persian alchemist Jabir ibn Haiyan?"

-Dan Merkur, in The psychoanalytic study of society (eds. Bryce Boyer, et al.), vol. 18, Routledge, ISBN 0-88163-161-2, page 352: "I would note that the Persian alchemist Jabir ibn Hayyan developed the theory that all metals consist of different 'balances' ..."

-Anthony Gross, The Dissolution of the Lancastrian Kingship: Sir John Fortescue and the Crisis of Monarchy in Fifteenth-century England, Paul Watkins, 1996, ISBN 1-871615-90-9, p.19: "Ever since the Seventy Books attributed to the Persian alchemist Jabir Ibn Hayyan had been translated into Latin ...."

-- Henry Corbin, "The Voyage and the Messenger: Iran and Philosophy", Translated by Joseph H. Rowe, North Atlantic Books, 1998. p.45: "The Nisba al-Azdin certainly does not necessarily indicate Arab origin. Geber seems to have been a client of the Azd tribe established in Kufa"AyOuBoXe (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

AyOuBoXe, I am not an expert on science in the Islamic Golden Age. I'm moving (copying) all this to the article talk. Continue the discussion there with other editors. But please look at the discussions in the Archives, which are now visible at the top of the talk page. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

March 2016[edit]

SpecialBarnstar.png The Special Barnstar
Thank you for your 2013 AFC review and assistance with International Hat Company. It was my first article submission on Wikipedia. I hope to get it nominated for good article status soon. Belshay (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Belshay. Few of the AFC's I worked on then were in as ready a condition as that article. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mint (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)