| Revision as of 19:53, 27 November 2010 editWeijiBaikeBianji (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers8,316 edits →WP:Further: Further reading sections are standard practice in high-quality encyclopedias, and why wouldn't we want Misplaced Pages to be of the highest possible quality?← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:35, 27 November 2010 edit undoVsevolodKrolikov (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers5,238 edits →WP:Further: resp to WBBNext edit → | ||
| Line 327: | Line 327: | ||
| :: (posted after edit conflict cleared) Most professionally edited encyclopedias have further reading references at the end of their articles. That seems to be a general characteristic of many of the subject-specialized encyclopedias that are acquired by academic libraries. I invite the editors looking on here to try the experiment of visiting an academic library reference section and looking for encyclopedia sets on various subjects. Many of those dead-tree encyclopedias have articles that end with a bibliography of book-length works that readers can refer to for more information on the article topic. The Manual of style ] makes clear enough that this has been routine practice on Misplaced Pages for years as well. What I try to do with further reading sections is to put well researched, thoroughly edited references into them as I discover those references, and then eventually (sometimes many months later) dig into those sections for sources for further edits of article text. Most of the {{numberofarticles}} articles on Misplaced Pages need a lot more editing, but as far as I know most of us few thousand active editors are volunteers who are either working or studying full-time besides editing Misplaced Pages, so it's not surprising that not every possible edit is done at once. Listing a further reading source with an article, as long as it is a well chosen source, has immediate usefulness to every reader of the article, and it has lasting usefulness to any other editor who surfs by and thinks "I could improve this article if only I knew of a source on this topic." On my part, now that I have gathered ] published by major commercial or academic publishers, purchased by major academic or public library systems, I simply don't have time simultaneously to edit all of the hundreds of Misplaced Pages articles that could be edited on the basis of those sources. I have my particular priority list of articles to edit on my volunteer time between work and family responsibilities. It may be that other editors have fewer means for finding such sources, but more time to ''use'' such sources once someone else finds them, so that if I share a reference to a source or sources in an article further reading section, those other editors can use their volunteer time productively updating the articles based on current, reliable sources. Division of labor helps everyone get more work done more efficiently. I have seen instances of further reading sections being spammed for political or commercial purposes, and I boldly delete sources from such further reading sections (which, fortunately, are not commonplace) if I find them. The main thing is to keep looking for ] all the time that have usefulness for follow-up reading by readers of Misplaced Pages and eventually usefulness for editors editing Misplaced Pages. I would expect every active Wikipedian to be curious and to delight in learning about new sources. -- ] (], ]) 19:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC) | :: (posted after edit conflict cleared) Most professionally edited encyclopedias have further reading references at the end of their articles. That seems to be a general characteristic of many of the subject-specialized encyclopedias that are acquired by academic libraries. I invite the editors looking on here to try the experiment of visiting an academic library reference section and looking for encyclopedia sets on various subjects. Many of those dead-tree encyclopedias have articles that end with a bibliography of book-length works that readers can refer to for more information on the article topic. The Manual of style ] makes clear enough that this has been routine practice on Misplaced Pages for years as well. What I try to do with further reading sections is to put well researched, thoroughly edited references into them as I discover those references, and then eventually (sometimes many months later) dig into those sections for sources for further edits of article text. Most of the {{numberofarticles}} articles on Misplaced Pages need a lot more editing, but as far as I know most of us few thousand active editors are volunteers who are either working or studying full-time besides editing Misplaced Pages, so it's not surprising that not every possible edit is done at once. Listing a further reading source with an article, as long as it is a well chosen source, has immediate usefulness to every reader of the article, and it has lasting usefulness to any other editor who surfs by and thinks "I could improve this article if only I knew of a source on this topic." On my part, now that I have gathered ] published by major commercial or academic publishers, purchased by major academic or public library systems, I simply don't have time simultaneously to edit all of the hundreds of Misplaced Pages articles that could be edited on the basis of those sources. I have my particular priority list of articles to edit on my volunteer time between work and family responsibilities. It may be that other editors have fewer means for finding such sources, but more time to ''use'' such sources once someone else finds them, so that if I share a reference to a source or sources in an article further reading section, those other editors can use their volunteer time productively updating the articles based on current, reliable sources. Division of labor helps everyone get more work done more efficiently. I have seen instances of further reading sections being spammed for political or commercial purposes, and I boldly delete sources from such further reading sections (which, fortunately, are not commonplace) if I find them. The main thing is to keep looking for ] all the time that have usefulness for follow-up reading by readers of Misplaced Pages and eventually usefulness for editors editing Misplaced Pages. I would expect every active Wikipedian to be curious and to delight in learning about new sources. -- ] (], ]) 19:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::: First, Misplaced Pages is not a paper encylopedia and it has hypertext, so it can use detailed footnotes, which encyclopedias typically do not. That is why we can dispense with further reading sections, which will implicitly have been used in the main body of a paper encyclopedia. Secondly, if you don't have time to read sources, you should not be adding them to articles. That's really simple. It's fine to put them onto the talkpage instead, with a note that they look useful. It's a real tragedy there are not a million dedicated people working night and day on content, but that's not an excuse for adding all these titles to the article itself. Further Reading is not for future sources , and ten hours before you posted on editors (mainly me) disputing precisely such an (ab)use of the further reading section. I know you don't read the books you spam pages with, but it would be nice if you could demonstrate that you've read things that other people address to you on Misplaced Pages. Using the section in the way you do clearly causes problems in NPOV monitoring. This has happened, as Sightwatcher found, in the ], ] and ] articles. These people are barely mentioned in the book you added (which you'd know if you'd actually, er, ''read it'') and to put a title like that at the bottom of their articles sends a clear message to the reader that these people are unequivocally scientific racists. This is very troubling editing.] (]) 23:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:35, 27 November 2010
 Archives |
/Archive 2009 |
AfD nomination of Mass killings under Communist regimes
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mass killings under Communist regimes. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Please edit my Russian translation
Hello VsevolodKrolikov, Happy to contact you. Could you go through my Russian translation Тъируналлур карунакаран of the original English article Thirunalloor Karunakaran , and correct it ? Brihaspathi (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Call to Arms I
An article that you have been involved in editing, Call to Arms I, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Call to Arms I. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. jmcw (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Karl rove religion thing
You were previously involved in a discussion involving the removal of a few paragraphs on the Karl Rove page regarding his religious affiliation. I'm just notifying you that the same user removed the content again and I thought you would want to be involved in the discussion since you were previously.Chhe (talk)
Creativity archived talk page is inaccessible.
{{help me}}
The talk page for Creativity has been archived (by a bot), but does not appear to to be accessible from the talk page - except tortuously (through an index search or edit history). Can someone fix this, or point me to where I can find out how to fix it? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- You can just link them from the main talk page using
{{archives|archive page name}}. The bot's edit summaries tell you where it's archived the content to. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)- Thanks for your help. Actually, I have a feeling that cluebot is doing something odd to the indices page (effectively blanking it after each update). I'll take it up with cluebot. Thanks again.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Multiple reverts
Hi, you have twice in two days exceeded the 1RR restriction on the WUWT article. I don't disagree with your last change, but you may want to be more careful, or even self revert. Fell Gleaming 15:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the heads up. To be honest, I don't think I have broken 1RR even once - in my understanding, 1RR is about reacting to other editors' recent (i.e. just done) changes more than once in 24 hours - i.e. edit-warring. I haven't done that. I've changed two edits in the past 48 hours - yours and Lawrencekhoo's. No other edits relate to recent changes by others as far as I can see. Indeed, the only other major change I've made was done after no opposition was expressed on the talkpage for over 24 hours after I proposed it (others were typos, clearly irrelevant links etc.). If I'm mistaken, could you point me in the direction of diffs, or a policy page that explains how what I've done has broken 1RR twice, or even once? Cheers. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- See "A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word.
- A "major change" or changing "material recently changed" is not required to qualify as a revert. I myself once thought otherwise, but several admins have explained the policy clearly. Fell Gleaming 15:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've had it clarified that correcting typos (and presumably source formatting too) is not part of any revert count. Could you provide diffs of the reverts that you are counting? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Come on now, you can count as easily as I can. Correcting a typo or cleaning up vandalism isn't counted; they're specific exceptions in the revert count policy. Neither of which were what you were doing in the article. Fell Gleaming 10:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- I asked for diffs in good faith. It's a common courtesy that people levelling accusations of disruptive editing provide diffs when asked, otherwise the complaint is ignored as a matter of course. You are now specifically claiming that none of my edits can be considered exempt from "reverts". Here are three diffs correcting typos or improving source formatting. Here is a fourth removing a source that was not even about the subject or point in hand (presumably left over from a previously removed edit) - but not altering the content one jot. It's really important when you make accusations against other editors that you check the facts and be prepared to back up what you say. Three of the other edits over a 48 hour period are changing a source (improving sourcing) without changing content and re-wording two edits (not reverting). Not one of any of these edits has been met with any objection by any editor. And then one edit, as it was potentially contentious, I had discussed on the talkpage. I waited for objections, of which there were none. So I put in the edit. This seems to be in line with policy. Interestingly, it's this one edit you object to, and it's the edit that you want me to revert on the basis of what honestly looks like a mistaken accusation of breaking 1RR. If you want to carry on with this, then please do so formally, but I should point out that an admin has already advised me that I don't appear to have done anything wrong. Instead you might perhaps respond on the talk page about that specific edit. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Come on now, you can count as easily as I can. Correcting a typo or cleaning up vandalism isn't counted; they're specific exceptions in the revert count policy. Neither of which were what you were doing in the article. Fell Gleaming 10:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've had it clarified that correcting typos (and presumably source formatting too) is not part of any revert count. Could you provide diffs of the reverts that you are counting? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I specifically didn't make a formal accusation in order to stay friendly and avoid a battleground mentality. You seem to want to kick things up a notch. If you want actual diffs of the latest violation, here you go:
Whether or not a specific edit has "met with objection from any editor" in no way prevents it from being classified as a revert, and in fact the first of those two edits was still under talk page discussion (not that this is even relevant). I meant my original post only as a friendly suggestion; you are of course free to take it however you wish. Fell Gleaming 13:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you're not aware of this, but accusing someone of making false statements without evidence raises things "a notch" (not apologising when given counter-evidence doesn't help matters either), as well as refusing to follow normal courtesy when asked for diffs to explain disruptive editing. As for those two diffs you have just provided, one is not a revert, it's a re-word, something specifically mentioned in WP:REVERT. Given that you explicitly do not object to that edit, you're hardly in a position now to argue that it was "undoing" your work. The other edit, as I keep explaining, was made after no opposition was raised when it was proposed on the talkboard, and as such is contestable as a revert. Then again, it would be the only revert (btw your claim of two 1RR violations in two days seems to have disappeared), so in any case there's no 1RR violation. It really would be much better for you and for the encyclopedia to put forward your substantive reasons for opposing that edit on the talk page rather than try to have it taken out through dubious procedural means. Isn't that what you're WP:HERE for? Let it lie and go back to the talk page, or raise the matter formally.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Shrug, you can think what you like, but when you change phrasing that's being discussed on the talk page, it's a revert, not a reword. If you disagree, you are of course free to continue reverting the article to your heart's desire. Fell Gleaming 16:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- So you agree it's one revert only and therefore no violation at all. Good. By the way, I am not free to revert the article to my heart's content, and have not done so.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Shrug, you can think what you like, but when you change phrasing that's being discussed on the talk page, it's a revert, not a reword. If you disagree, you are of course free to continue reverting the article to your heart's desire. Fell Gleaming 16:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on the discussions of Russia as a superpower
I will review the thought but also I may add I have found over 110 articles from 2004 to now on Russia being a superpower in some fashion (many are media articles), I have one affirmed acedemic report here. Let me know what you think. --Globalstatus (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I genuinely think you misunderstand how wikipedia works. Misplaced Pages is not about what is "true". It is about what reliable sources as a whole say. Finding one academic source that says something is not enough. Where there is debate, we present the debate, not choose one side as "correct". It's the case that you personally believe Russia to be a superpower, and that you have arguments and evidence for this. But none of that matters on Misplaced Pages because as an editor, your own research and conclusions have no weight at all. You also shouldn't be here to promote your personal point of view. As for the Rosefielde book, it was written in 2004 about what might happen thereafter. It was a prediction. It will not do as evidence for Russia's status in 2010, just as a horse-racing tip that came true would still not be evidence of the result. I don't like your version of "superpower or not" because it does not reflect the debate - which is about regional power/greatpower/superpower and in general/militarily/commodity-wise, and has significance not only in terms of Russia's status, but in Russian nationalist discourse. The English sources have this range, and so do the Russian sources. My position on what the article should say is nothing to do with my own views on Russia's status, which are simply not relevant.
- And finally, please calm down and try and work with people. Do NOT ever, ever, delete someone else's comments from an article talkpage. It is vandalism. If you carry on with your approach so far, it's highly likely you'll be blocked or topic banned at some time in the near future. Put your passion for the subject into improving the encyclopaedia, rather than using the encyclopaedia to promote you personal views.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't remember removing any talk discussions but if I did it was an accident on the editorial copy & paste function but trying to reply to the subject at hand. If one asks a question of me I sometimes will ask the same vice versa question back. For example if one says Russia is a great power and they ask me to find sources on superpower status, I will ask what sources they have to say it is a great power but no response is provided; I am left clueless on my part versing theirs - many times editors will only comment each and everytime without sources. I have provided tons of articles and editorials on these media sources just may refer Russia as a superpower but maybe no evidence in the article but then you connect the media dots you see a pattern of these Russian superpower quotes on journals and media sources. Not all articles are perfect but I am providing the facts at least on a media stand point; these articles are perfectly acceptable for college research material for example. Not all articles on Misplaced Pages are all supported by only acedemic sources it is impossible as you need some media articles if acedemic articles are not available or not current. I refuse to use blogs though even media blogs are ok on Misplaced Pages but I scout for media or any acedemic sources I can find and I post the information for editors to read my findings. It is time consuming reading and reading these sources if they are good enough but with this subject matter with Russia as a superpower I take very seriously. I have articles I can provide but if not all the evidence is acedemic sometimes you have to accept the media regardless in my opinion.--Globalstatus (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Read policy on original research. That's what your "connecting the dots" is. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Request for sources on Russia as a great power
- Because the article has changed from superpower to great power under the Russia article I am now going to question the article as a great power as it stands as you have been actively involved in this discussion. I want to read sources from you that says Russia is a great power and not from great power article (not the table in the end) (that is not an effective source) because contributing editors who have denounced edits in the great powers is not the accurate source of information when there has been conflicting contributing editors that denounced the sources on there. There should be a weight of sources to have this article state it is great power so I am seeking that information as you have said Russia is a great power so I want to ask you for your sources please. Provide these great power acedemic sources please.--Globalstatus (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Why are you posting this on my talkpage? You've put the same thing on the Russia talkpage. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Because the article has changed from superpower to great power under the Russia article I am now going to question the article as a great power as it stands as you have been actively involved in this discussion. I want to read sources from you that says Russia is a great power and not from great power article (not the table in the end) (that is not an effective source) because contributing editors who have denounced edits in the great powers is not the accurate source of information when there has been conflicting contributing editors that denounced the sources on there. There should be a weight of sources to have this article state it is great power so I am seeking that information as you have said Russia is a great power so I want to ask you for your sources please. Provide these great power acedemic sources please.--Globalstatus (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Russia article edit removal
Can you explain to me why you removed these important sources on Russia's article?
When they are pointed to the term as its specific definition does not make much sense to erase valid information to the article. Each source tells a specific editoral of Russia being a superpower. I disagree you erasing it so I think maybe this should go on the discussions page to debate this further.--Globalstatus (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Each "source" describes the same event - a head of government (Netanyahu) visiting Russia and saying nice things about Russia to Putin's face. You do not need to source the same information three times, and in any case this event does not add anything to the point being made. One can only surmise that you didn't read the material, which just reflects poorly on you. There are enough sources already, and we are trying to cut down the size of the article. This may have passed you by as you continue with your WP:POINTy edit warring. No one agrees with you, you're breaking all sorts of guidelines and policies, so move on. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 02:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
GA reassessment of Russia
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:Russia/GA2. I have de-listed the article but it can be re-nominated at WP:GAN when these concerns are addressed.. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
A telling off
Shut up you atheist!!! Depart from me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timz paul (talk • contribs) 07:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Citations
Please be careful when removing viable citations as they may be used multiple times within an article due to the <ref name= (whatever)> formatting. Thanks.--MONGO 04:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't. You should have checked my edit more thoroughly. I put the full ref elsewhere in the article where the security council statement is also cited. I replaced the security council citation in that part of the lede because it is not a good source for the fact of the attacks by al Qaeda. It was put out only a day after the attacks. That is not good sourcing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please discuss any major citation changes before making them. Thanks....I'll recheck your edit.--MONGO 04:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should have checked before responding here. You are showing signs of WP:OWNERSHIP. I raised these citations earlier, but you archived my comments as "conspiracy theory gibberish". I pointed out that I had raised valid sourcing issues - and you archived them again. I understand that there are a lot of truthers out there, but that's no excuse for poor sourcing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Chill out. The talk page had an example of you offering assistance to a CT time waster...and that sort of thing if repeated often enough can lead to discretionary sanctions being implemented. Feel free to post anything that isn't CT nonsense and refrain from offering an audience to CTers...providing "assistance" (aiding and abetting) to CTers can be viewed by many as contrary to writing a fact based account of the events. I have written 10 featured articles and started over 600 others, all referenced, so I think I have an idea of what good referencing is.--MONGO 04:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Heh. All I did was tell someone that the material's already on wikipedia, and the main 9/11 page isn't the place for it, as it's conspiracy theory. I haven't been the one placing NOTICES on the talkpage, or deliberately archiving fresh discussions of sourcing. If my response to another editor is the reason for reverting my sourcing changes without due attention, it's not the best reason one could think of. Out of interest, could you point to the decision that would allow someone to be put under discretionary sanctions for doing what I did? It sounds like an extraordinary policy decision, if it's actually been made. btw, it's great that you've done all that article work. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- One of the reasons the UN cite for calling the 9/11 event an act of terrorism was put there was because for a long time, that term was a bone of contention...so by adding a UN reference that detailed what the vast majority of other countries called 9/11, it didn't have the air of being US centric...it's ridiculous to expect you to examine ancient and not so ancient talkpage articles where pages and pages of text were committed to this argument that 9/11 wasn't an act of terrorism..so when I saw you remove that cite and place it elsewhere, it sent up a red flag for me...so what I am trying to say here is that I would prrefer to place the UN cite back where it was only so we don't run into the same old tired argument down the road. Otherwise, I want to apologize for upsetting you about this..,I was wrong to jump the gun and be a little hyperactive about this...I hope you accept my apology. Best wishes!--MONGO 18:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- No problem :-) I can only imagine the lunacy of a few years that would have turned up on that page. (I've edited a fair bit on Zeitgeist, the Movie, which has its own CT devotees.) To be honest, I think we're safe now from such arguments about terrorism, but if you want to insure against the argument returning, why not add the cite to the word, rather than to the whole sentence? My objection was it was not a good source for the whole sentence, and being a source from Sept 12, it allows CT people fun with confused reporting in the days after the event. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- One of the reasons the UN cite for calling the 9/11 event an act of terrorism was put there was because for a long time, that term was a bone of contention...so by adding a UN reference that detailed what the vast majority of other countries called 9/11, it didn't have the air of being US centric...it's ridiculous to expect you to examine ancient and not so ancient talkpage articles where pages and pages of text were committed to this argument that 9/11 wasn't an act of terrorism..so when I saw you remove that cite and place it elsewhere, it sent up a red flag for me...so what I am trying to say here is that I would prrefer to place the UN cite back where it was only so we don't run into the same old tired argument down the road. Otherwise, I want to apologize for upsetting you about this..,I was wrong to jump the gun and be a little hyperactive about this...I hope you accept my apology. Best wishes!--MONGO 18:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Heh. All I did was tell someone that the material's already on wikipedia, and the main 9/11 page isn't the place for it, as it's conspiracy theory. I haven't been the one placing NOTICES on the talkpage, or deliberately archiving fresh discussions of sourcing. If my response to another editor is the reason for reverting my sourcing changes without due attention, it's not the best reason one could think of. Out of interest, could you point to the decision that would allow someone to be put under discretionary sanctions for doing what I did? It sounds like an extraordinary policy decision, if it's actually been made. btw, it's great that you've done all that article work. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Chill out. The talk page had an example of you offering assistance to a CT time waster...and that sort of thing if repeated often enough can lead to discretionary sanctions being implemented. Feel free to post anything that isn't CT nonsense and refrain from offering an audience to CTers...providing "assistance" (aiding and abetting) to CTers can be viewed by many as contrary to writing a fact based account of the events. I have written 10 featured articles and started over 600 others, all referenced, so I think I have an idea of what good referencing is.--MONGO 04:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should have checked before responding here. You are showing signs of WP:OWNERSHIP. I raised these citations earlier, but you archived my comments as "conspiracy theory gibberish". I pointed out that I had raised valid sourcing issues - and you archived them again. I understand that there are a lot of truthers out there, but that's no excuse for poor sourcing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please discuss any major citation changes before making them. Thanks....I'll recheck your edit.--MONGO 04:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Signatures
I should just give up, shoudn't I :-) In attempting to correct my original error of not signing my post, I made a much larger error (edited the version of the page at the time of my post rather than the current one). Thanks for spotting it and sorting it out. — Amakuru (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's what I guessed. No problem - we all do stuff like that. (well, I do, anyway).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer permission
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth Games Village 2010
Hi there, regarding your comment on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth Games Village 2010. I have no intention of WP:CANVASS, but would you think merging is a better idea? After all, the Venues article has already covered the Commonwealth Games Village and the concerns and controversies across two sections already. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 12:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi AngChenrui. Don't worry - I don't consider this canvassing, as I'm aware of the discussion already. As I suggested, my vote for keeping a separate article is based on an intuition that there should be (or at least it's valid to have) separate games village articles. I can see your argument as I understand it, that "venues" can include the village and so obviate the need for a separate article. It is, in one sense, tidier. However, I'm of the view that games sporting venues and athlete villages are qualitatively different aspects of the games. My feeling is that from a user's point of view, someone doing research into venues would probably separate the issue. It's also true that athlete accommodation gets RS coverage as a matter of course these days. For me, this is a good example of the advantages of WP:NOTPAPER. Consolidation on Misplaced Pages is necessary when there's a mess of repeated and disorganised information. I don't see that issue here. In this case, having a separate article will probably attract more information, rather than simply more flab.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Noted, I understand. Thank you, ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 14:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to the Climate change denial page.
If you've been around for some time, my apologies for not noticing, but I've seen several very thoughtful posts, and excellent sources added by you recently. --SPhilbrickT 13:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Aw, thanks! You're not wrong - I've not been on the climate pages until recently. I had a wikibreak between last year and this, during which I found myself arguing a lot about climate change with some (ahem) "interesting" people on another internet site, during which I learnt quite a lot about both the science and the politics of the whole thing. It's a relief to be on wikipedia actually sifting through sources properly; the pointless slanging matches and Gish Gallops were getting tiring. It looks like I've joined in at a good time, when the arbitration committee has enforced a calmdown. Let's make progress in creating good stable articles! VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the redirect help!
Of course I wouldn't expect you to keep this on your page, but I have another question. While I've created the redirect and have it working to where someone who searches "Skye Champion" will be redirected to the I'82 page (and thanks to your correction, down to the Characters section), I'm still having a problem on Melissa Disney's page. I added an entry there to note her voicework in the game, but putting in "Skye Champion" still only works as a red page-does-not-exist link. What do I need to do to correct it?Givemeausernameplease (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. The problem was that the original redirect you created was Skye champion (note the small c) not Skye Champion. I created Skye Champion and added the redirect. Apart from the enforced first capital, titles for wikipedia articles are case sensitive (See Thinking machines and Thinking Machines as an example). So your redlink appeared because it was actually pointing to a page that hadn't been created yet. But it's all solved now.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Much appreciated!Givemeausernameplease (talk) 04:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
"Linen" article on wikipedia
Hello,
Recently you have deleted my addition to the article "linen" which was the link to the excerpts from the book "Flax and linen". First of all I am not the owner of this website. I only a web designer and I placed this link as I found this material is interesting for anyone who wants to learn more about linen and flax. Second why is this link more promotional than others under this articles that lead to the e-commerce web-sites? I would greatly appreciate your answer.
Thank you Juliady —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliady (talk • contribs) 05:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- As the designer of the page, you have a conflict of interest in adding it - see also here. I reverted it on sight, seeing that you were the web designer, and there was a bunch of credit card symbols at the bottom. However, I've looked at the other links (removed a couple that were clearly bad), and I think you have a good point. I've asked a question at Misplaced Pages:External_links/Noticeboard#Linen_-_commercial_links about this, as I'd like clarification on what should and shouldn't be included.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello VsevolodKrolikov,
Thank you very much for your answer. I do appreciate your response and I do not wish to violate any Misplaced Pages rules whatsoever. I have read very carefully the articles about COI and I did not find anything saying that if you are the web designer of the web site in question you cannot place a link to this web site as it will be the violation of the rules. As far as I understand the external link should lead to the material which adds to the article in question. I also understand that the link should be provided with a clear neutral explanation why this link is here. I think you would agree that absolutely every web site was created by someone and heretofore any link to any site can be classified as “promotion” or “advertising”. I do appreciate that you have decided to clear out this matter by addressing Misplaced Pages:External_links/Noticeboard#Linen_-_commercial_links. Please let me know if you will get the clarification. Thank you once again Best regards Juliady —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliady (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Juliady. The conflict of interest issue in this situation is most clearly explained in the external links policy here. But basically, if you were involved in the production of material, or in some way might benefit personally from wider exposure of that material, then there's a conflict of interest when you yourself add it to the article. This doesn't mean that it shouldn't go in, it's just putting it in yourself is not encouraged. Instead you should normally ask someone else to assess it. I took it out because at first glance it looked like someone merely trying to promote their own business (this happens a lot on wikipedia), but after you asked me to reconsider, I looked again, and I think I was too hasty in doing so. I'll wait to get more input from others at the External links noticeboard (they don't agree either). I apologise for appearing bureaucratic; this is simply a chance for me (just another volunteer like yourself) to get a better grasp of policy, so that I don't have to hum and hah in the future.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello Vsevolod,
I am grateful for the opportunity to learn more about rules on Misplaced Pages. As per the article in question let’s wait till there are more opinions from others. I know that this company plans to publish lots of materials about Russian Linen which can add more details to the article. History of growing flax and producing linen in Russia is not in any way less interesting than, for example, history of Irish linen. I understand now the point of adding links to the articles and will follow those rules in future. Thank you again Best regards Julia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliady (talk • contribs) 13:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Stanley Lewis fashion brand
Hello VsevolodKrolikov,
I have just added some content about my fashion brand Stanley Lewis. But unfortunately it was got deleted may be due to looking like promotional. We have only added information about our brand and not promoting the brand at wiki pedia.
Thanks
Satyendra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.180.146.162 (talk) 06:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Sayendra. There are a few issues you need to overcome before inclusion of material on your company can get onto wikipedia. The first, as you noticed, is that we don't do advertising, and no PR push to make the company sound special - your text still did that, for example: "Stanley Lewis believes men need to focus more on finding an equilibrium in all aspects of life. This is demonstrated not only in the collection of accessories the brand produces, but also in the website." The second is the use of reliable sources. Most of what you used as sourcing were blogs, press releases and the company's own website, which I'm afraid are not at the level of independence and quality we like to have. A third issue is that you have a clear conflict of interest. This means you should avoid directly editing material on matters with which you have a personal or professional connection - instead you should ask other editors to include material. The last problem is the biggest: notability. I did a quick news archive search for your brand, and it looks like you haven't really made enough of an impact yet to pass our requirements on notability (one article in The Australian appeared to be it). Misplaced Pages only covers things already receiving decent coverage in independent sources; it shouldn't - inadvertently or deliberately - be a means of increasing visibility for a product. All the best, VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Your Great Comment on the Causalities of 9/11 attacks Page
Greetings, VsevolodKrolikov! I wanted to thank you for your very useful comment regard total causality count for the 9/11 attacks (this page - Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks. I added a possible link to your query and wanted your feedback on using this page. I put a brief quote from it under the NYC 9/11 causalities section but we can remove it if we decide there's a better source elsewhere. Thanks for your interest - are you involved in the September 11 attacks wikiproject? There's not a lot of people active in it lately so it would be helpful. Give me some of your feedback if you get a chance! Thanks... WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi WiiAlbanyGirl. Thanks for your comments. I actually found a very good source, from the NY office of the chief medical examiner, and posted the link on the main 9/11 talk page, and made a promise to insert the figures where needed - which I haven't kept. (sigh) . I like that link best of all because it's the people who get to decide the official figures. Please go ahead and add it, if I don't do so first. Although you've helpfully reminded me, I can't today as I'm editing from an iPad and it's rubbish at keeping editing windows open when switching between windows. As for the project - I really should focus on other stuff first that I know more about, as wiki time is a little limited. But thanks for asking anyway..VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Southern Europe
The editor who made this edit is in Finland, which may explain why they would think of the UK as being "southern". This aside, I think he has a point: there's not much pro-life activism in northern Europe. Is there a way we could state this accurately? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- That might be the source of the confusion, although I would personally never consider Germany Eastern Europe because I'm British. Do we have sources that say there isn't much going on in the Nordic countries? Or perhaps it's Catholic countries plus the UK? (There'll be stuff in Ireland too, I'm sure).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's not easy to source. The best I've come up with are articles that talk generalities, such as this one. Can you do better? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Here's one from 1996, which goes into some nice detail, although it would change what the article says. If you don't mind, I'll transfer this conversation to the Pro-life talkpage, so that other people can chip in.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's not easy to source. The best I've come up with are articles that talk generalities, such as this one. Can you do better? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you have access to ... ?
Book Reviews: Radical, Religious, And Violent: The New Economics of Terrorism By Eli Berman. By Michael Mcbride. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 49, Issue 3, pages 575–576, September 2010? The reason I didn't separate the refs myself is that I couldn't find this one, so I couldn't tell what's based only on it. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a section on his book and reception thereof should be added as well. Insofar the article only summarizes Berman's research. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I can't get at it (it's so new it doesn't even appear on google scholar). My institution doesn't subscribe to it, so I'm probably not able to see it even in a couple of months time. I agree we need secondary commentary. His work seems to be cited a lot, so he's clearly getting attention.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- But this has reviews. It doesn't help much, as we don't know how faithfully they are reproduced, but it's a pointer to where to look.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Siberian nationality
Do you think, given the sources available on this topic, an article about siberian nationalism / the small movement would be justifiable or meet wiki standards of notability? --Львівське (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. There's an article called Siberian regionalism already. I think that would be the best repository of information. It has nothing on modern-day movements, and the material about the census could go in there.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
POV
Hi ... I missed how the ref-supported reference you removed at Hellfire was POV. You can respond here. Tx much.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. POV can occur in different ways, and one of those ways is what one does and doesn't mention. The way that "targeted killings" was used in effect gave a particular emphasis and legitimating interpretation of the use of the missiles that is in dispute (The Israelis claim careful, rational, legalish use, the Palestinians dispute this general characterisation). I was choosing a no-sides (let's not go there) rather than a both sides approach, appropriate for an article that should not be a fork for I-P issues.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I hear you, but I'm not sure I see it. The use is the use by the UN (as they question it). The IP's point was, as I mentioned on the tp, IMHO akin to an article on what cars are used for saying "used for drunk murders" -- even though that's not the intention of the user. For targeted killing, I believe we have RSs (I can collect some) that say some countries have used it in Targeted Killings. This becomes important, because the level of the charge of the missile will ultimately related to proportionality, an issue for targeted killing (under Israeli, UN, Palestinian, etc. approaches). The article loses IMHO if we censor it out.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's not censoring. It can hardly be censoring if I think it's a coatrack/fork (ie this material belongs elsewhere). Furthermore, "targeted killing" is a contested term. It doesn't matter if you find RSs that use the word without comment as if it is neutral. There is, as I am sure you are aware, other RS that questions targeted killing as a euphemism for assassination, and other RS that challenges the assertion that "targeted killing" is carried out with the precision and oversight that the term implies and as is claimed. You might want to compare it with "unlawful combatant" and "enhanced coercive interrogation technique", which are terms propounded by one side. I fail to see how a simple statement to the effect that Israel has used them in the ongoing conflict in Palestine - which no one disputes - is POV. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I hear you, but I'm not sure I see it. The use is the use by the UN (as they question it). The IP's point was, as I mentioned on the tp, IMHO akin to an article on what cars are used for saying "used for drunk murders" -- even though that's not the intention of the user. For targeted killing, I believe we have RSs (I can collect some) that say some countries have used it in Targeted Killings. This becomes important, because the level of the charge of the missile will ultimately related to proportionality, an issue for targeted killing (under Israeli, UN, Palestinian, etc. approaches). The article loses IMHO if we censor it out.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- It goes beyond that. The U.S. uses all sorts of weapons in its ongoing conflict on the AfPak border. It is known for using Hellfire missiles in TK, specifically because of the collateral damage issues. As I've pointed out at the Hellfire talkpage. Calling it "in the AfPak conflict" hides the ball from the reader. I have no reason to believe that people think TK means no collateral damage -- that's clear in the article, and in all manner of discussions by those who use the term, including the UN. It has to do with the killer having a target, but does not speak to the issue of collateral damage. And all manner of RSs, countries, the UN, law books, etc. use the term, not just fringe ones or two.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The article is not about the propriety of the use of such weapons. That kind of discussion belongs in articles that cover the actions of governments. To try to introduce such a discussion here is coatracking. Your understanding of source use also appears to show a belief that wikipedia should tell "the truth", which it avowedly does not. Misplaced Pages does not take sides in substantive disputes. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes -- I'm familiar with the fact that our goal is to reflect what is verifiable (i.e., what is reflected in RSs), rather than truth. That is understood in my comments. Of course it is not about the propriety of use of the weapons. Nobody said it was. But the features of the weapons are of moment, not at all coat-racking. The fact that they bear on issues relative to their use does not make it coatracking, concealing the focus of the article from view, anymore than it would be coatracking to have features of cars (safety being one of them, or their usefulness for certain purposes such as all-terrain vehicles) "coatracking". It's core to the functionality of the subject of the article, quite far from coatracking. Coatracking is where a nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of another subject, leaving the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject, which of course isn't at all what we are talking about here.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- if you can link to the section in the instruction manual of the weapon that's entitled "when using as part of a 'targeted killing' political-military strategy" then I'll listen to your suggested editions. Otherwise, let's leave it, shall we?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, yes, there seems little use having a conversation with you if rather than applying wiki guidelines you are applying personally constructed ones.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- So far you haven't actually cited any wiki guidelines here. I gave you what seems to be a fair criterion for establishing intended use, which we both agree is the salient issue here - and you're welcome to challenge it. I think it always is better to have one's editing guided by principles, rather than justifiying one's edits by whatever principles can be found. How about you?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, yes, there seems little use having a conversation with you if rather than applying wiki guidelines you are applying personally constructed ones.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- if you can link to the section in the instruction manual of the weapon that's entitled "when using as part of a 'targeted killing' political-military strategy" then I'll listen to your suggested editions. Otherwise, let's leave it, shall we?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Use:Tornadofan
Hi,
You greeted User Tornadofan to Misplaced Pages for his intervention on Weather radar. It looked as an invertion of an IP vandalism but this edit was not a good thing as it eliminated the title of a section. I just wanted to let you know that I'm not so sure that this Tornadofan is a good editor. It seems to me an account created by the IP to confuse the situation and I had to return to the last good version of Weather radar. I will keep an eye on his future behaviour. Pierre cb (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Pierre - and whoops, I missed user:Tornadofan's overenthusiastic deletion. (I was browsing the user creation log checking for vandals, thought s/he'd registered to remove vandalism, and so hit "welcome" on twinkle). My apologies. There's no evidence that this user is anything other than someone trying to remove vandalism who cut the whole line the vandalism was on instead of just the expletive, so I wouldn't worry about anything covert at the moment. I've warned the IP in question. All the best, VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Bindhyabasini Jagaddhatri
Hi, requested text is here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Re:Creativity and intelligence
My understanding is that while there's been much effort to expand the definition of intelligence to include e.g. personality traits, these efforts have not generally been accepted by intelligence researchers. Creativity and genius often suggest high intelligence, but they invariably also imply traits that are not cognitive abilities in the sense that most intelligence researchers use the term.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Creativity isn't a personality trait. Most commonly it's defined as divergent thinking - which is unquestionably a cognitive ability. I feel you're pushing for the "truth", but wikipedia represents the balance of RS. I'm fully aware that some researchers (and it's not true that "intelligence researchers" have a clear view as a body of people) would exclude divergent thinking from "intelligence". My point is that enough researchers explore the Otconnection/interrelation for it to be justifiable for creativity to be part of the "human intelligence" template. I also think that emotional intelligence should be part of the template. That may not accord with the views of some intelligence researchers, but that's what the articles can explain. Otherwise we have a template that is there to push a particular POV which does not have the consensus support of RS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The following quotation from the "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" statement explicates the difference between intelligence and other traits:
- 1. Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings -- "catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.
- 2. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, character, personality, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.
Of course, the statement reflects the psychometric approach, but it is the dominant perspective among intelligence researchers.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what some researchers say. Are these people experts in creativity research? No. Are they the clear majority of all researchers in intelligence-related topics, rather than those concerned with psychometric testing? No. And that's the issue. Misplaced Pages is not about "truth". There are far and away enough respected researchers in appropriate fields who consider creativity part of the general issue of cognitive ability to include creativity in this template. To exclude is to take a definitive, narrow position. To include, but have caveats and disputes listed in the articles themselves is NPOV. That's the principle you need to address, not which POV is "correct". VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I should check Snyderman, Mark; Rothman, Stanley (February 1987). "Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence and Aptitude Testing". American Psychologist. 42 (2): 137–144. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.42.2.137. ISSN 0003-066X. Retrieved 15 August 2010.
{{cite journal}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) and some of the citing secondary literature in the next day or so to clarify this interesting issue. I'd love to hear from you what you think about what this source says. Of course, there are quite a few other authors who write about this issue, and I'm still developing a sense of what their consensus is. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Creativity and genius are undoubtedly related to intelligence, but I think it's problematic to say that they are subcategories of the umbrella term 'human intelligence'. For example, if someone is a great painter or sculptor, most researchers would not regard them as highly intelligent just because of that. Perhaps someone like Howard Gardner would, but we must not privilege the controversial views of one or two researchers.
To make the template "inclusive" by adding all sorts of controversial constructs and hypotheses to it is not necessarily a neutral approach. Rather, it may favor those that support particular novel views and disfavors those that think that intelligence should be defined in a stricter manner. Undue weight should not be given to marginal views.
However, I think it's OK to list genius, creativity and emotional intelligence in the "Related" section of the template as long as we don't include the template in those articles.--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Terminological distinctions
I was searching for something else, and came across a new book on psychology
with some discussion of the conceptual issues that you have brought up with your thoughtful comments on article talk pages and here. I may be able to circulate the book from the main research university in my town, my source for many of the books now in my office, in a few days. I'm trying to gather some quotations from standard sources on narrower (psychometric) or broader (common language or cognitive science) definitions of "intelligence." I think there are some straightforward ways to distinguish the broader and narrower senses of the term in Misplaced Pages article text through further editing based on reliable sources. See you on the articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks - I'll have a look a bit later.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Second language learning merge proposal
Hi, and thanks for commenting on my proposed merger of Second language learning. This is just to let you know that I moved your comment to the talk page at Talk:Language education#Merger proposal as I didn't want it to get left out of any discussion. I hope I haven't caused too much confusion. — GypsyJiver (drop me a line) 07:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's fine. Thanks for notifying me.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
RfC regarding User:Otis1017
Hello,
I noticed that you have been involved in the low-level edit war taking place on Garry's Mod and was hoping that you would take the time to weigh in on an RfC related to the dispute: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Otis1017. Best regards, ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I haven't been watching that page at all. Sorry.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
RFC/U
I might not know the right way to do this because I've never done anything like this at Misplaced Pages before. I didn't know my name needed to be there, but I added it now. I'm also not sure who I ought to notify about the RFC. Last month I commented in a thread where when the person who posted it contacted the various users who had been involved in dispute, the editor was accused of canvassing. If I don't notify the "right" people, I’m afraid of giving Mathsci more ammunition to use against me in the arbitration enforcement thread he posted. I'm sorry, but that risk is not something I want to subject myself to right now. You're welcome to notify any users yourself who you think ought to know about this thread, though.-SightWatcher (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I can't find anything on the RFC/user pages about notifying anyone or any page except the subject. That seems a little odd. I haven't ever set up or been "involved" in an RFC dispute as far as I recall, so I'm kind of in the dark. It may be worthwhile getting clarification for future reference, but that's another matter entirely. My main concern was getting it certified - which has been done by now. the RFC is to get outside comment, rather than transferring disputes to a different page.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your recent comment at WP:AE. PhilKnight (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:Further
I agree WP:FURTHER could be codified a bit more, with a main page dedicated to it. One thing that often happens for example is that people add their self-published books to that section. The wording of Misplaced Pages:Spam#Bookspam is too fluffy to be of any use; people can always argue that their book contains "useful and relevant information". --JN466 15:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm surprised I haven't seen more abuse in Further Reading sections (I've seen loads in external links). It looks ripe for self-promotion and POV conflict. As per some comments on the WP:FURTHER talkpage, I tend to think we should simply remove such sections. If a book is that good, it should be in the sources. I can see a reader-based argument for a list of sources we would recommend to start on were a user interested in going deeper into a topic (including books already referenced in the main text), but in practice that would cause havoc on any topic where there are fundamental disputes, as well as raising issues of OR (who are we as anonymous volunteers to recommend one high quality source over a whole series of others?). What do you see as the function of these sections, given that the encyclopedia is in a more mature phase now than when they were introduced?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- (posted after edit conflict cleared) Most professionally edited encyclopedias have further reading references at the end of their articles. That seems to be a general characteristic of many of the subject-specialized encyclopedias that are acquired by academic libraries. I invite the editors looking on here to try the experiment of visiting an academic library reference section and looking for encyclopedia sets on various subjects. Many of those dead-tree encyclopedias have articles that end with a bibliography of book-length works that readers can refer to for more information on the article topic. The Manual of style section on the issue makes clear enough that this has been routine practice on Misplaced Pages for years as well. What I try to do with further reading sections is to put well researched, thoroughly edited references into them as I discover those references, and then eventually (sometimes many months later) dig into those sections for sources for further edits of article text. Most of the 6,929,839 articles on Misplaced Pages need a lot more editing, but as far as I know most of us few thousand active editors are volunteers who are either working or studying full-time besides editing Misplaced Pages, so it's not surprising that not every possible edit is done at once. Listing a further reading source with an article, as long as it is a well chosen source, has immediate usefulness to every reader of the article, and it has lasting usefulness to any other editor who surfs by and thinks "I could improve this article if only I knew of a source on this topic." On my part, now that I have gathered hundreds of sources published by major commercial or academic publishers, purchased by major academic or public library systems, I simply don't have time simultaneously to edit all of the hundreds of Misplaced Pages articles that could be edited on the basis of those sources. I have my particular priority list of articles to edit on my volunteer time between work and family responsibilities. It may be that other editors have fewer means for finding such sources, but more time to use such sources once someone else finds them, so that if I share a reference to a source or sources in an article further reading section, those other editors can use their volunteer time productively updating the articles based on current, reliable sources. Division of labor helps everyone get more work done more efficiently. I have seen instances of further reading sections being spammed for political or commercial purposes, and I boldly delete sources from such further reading sections (which, fortunately, are not commonplace) if I find them. The main thing is to keep looking for reliable sources all the time that have usefulness for follow-up reading by readers of Misplaced Pages and eventually usefulness for editors editing Misplaced Pages. I would expect every active Wikipedian to be curious and to delight in learning about new sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- First, Misplaced Pages is not a paper encylopedia and it has hypertext, so it can use detailed footnotes, which encyclopedias typically do not. That is why we can dispense with further reading sections, which will implicitly have been used in the main body of a paper encyclopedia. Secondly, if you don't have time to read sources, you should not be adding them to articles. That's really simple. It's fine to put them onto the talkpage instead, with a note that they look useful. It's a real tragedy there are not a million dedicated people working night and day on content, but that's not an excuse for adding all these titles to the article itself. Further Reading is not for future sources as you were told seven hours before posting here, and ten hours before you posted this attack (second added paragraph) on editors (mainly me) disputing precisely such an (ab)use of the further reading section. I know you don't read the books you spam pages with, but it would be nice if you could demonstrate that you've read things that other people address to you on Misplaced Pages. Using the section in the way you do clearly causes problems in NPOV monitoring. This has happened, as Sightwatcher found, in the Linda Gottfredson, Richard Lynn and Glayde Whitney articles. These people are barely mentioned in the book you added (which you'd know if you'd actually, er, read it) and to put a title like that at the bottom of their articles sends a clear message to the reader that these people are unequivocally scientific racists. This is very troubling editing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- (posted after edit conflict cleared) Most professionally edited encyclopedias have further reading references at the end of their articles. That seems to be a general characteristic of many of the subject-specialized encyclopedias that are acquired by academic libraries. I invite the editors looking on here to try the experiment of visiting an academic library reference section and looking for encyclopedia sets on various subjects. Many of those dead-tree encyclopedias have articles that end with a bibliography of book-length works that readers can refer to for more information on the article topic. The Manual of style section on the issue makes clear enough that this has been routine practice on Misplaced Pages for years as well. What I try to do with further reading sections is to put well researched, thoroughly edited references into them as I discover those references, and then eventually (sometimes many months later) dig into those sections for sources for further edits of article text. Most of the 6,929,839 articles on Misplaced Pages need a lot more editing, but as far as I know most of us few thousand active editors are volunteers who are either working or studying full-time besides editing Misplaced Pages, so it's not surprising that not every possible edit is done at once. Listing a further reading source with an article, as long as it is a well chosen source, has immediate usefulness to every reader of the article, and it has lasting usefulness to any other editor who surfs by and thinks "I could improve this article if only I knew of a source on this topic." On my part, now that I have gathered hundreds of sources published by major commercial or academic publishers, purchased by major academic or public library systems, I simply don't have time simultaneously to edit all of the hundreds of Misplaced Pages articles that could be edited on the basis of those sources. I have my particular priority list of articles to edit on my volunteer time between work and family responsibilities. It may be that other editors have fewer means for finding such sources, but more time to use such sources once someone else finds them, so that if I share a reference to a source or sources in an article further reading section, those other editors can use their volunteer time productively updating the articles based on current, reliable sources. Division of labor helps everyone get more work done more efficiently. I have seen instances of further reading sections being spammed for political or commercial purposes, and I boldly delete sources from such further reading sections (which, fortunately, are not commonplace) if I find them. The main thing is to keep looking for reliable sources all the time that have usefulness for follow-up reading by readers of Misplaced Pages and eventually usefulness for editors editing Misplaced Pages. I would expect every active Wikipedian to be curious and to delight in learning about new sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday WeijiBaikeBianji added books like this to "further reading" for around a dozen different articles. Half of them or so were reverted, but I feel that some of the remaining half might not be okay either. The books he adds always seem to be accusing the people of being racists, even when this isn't the only thing they're notable for. When "further reading" only has books like this it seems to be implying that their opinions on race are more important than anything else. Would either of you mind giving a second opinion about whether the rest of the articles he did this to were appropriate?
He also did this a few months ago, such as- , , , and I feel these should be looked at too. And the first two are even about living people so I'm not sure if its okay to do this in a BLP.(Oops, just realized that the Roger Pearson article is a BLP too) -SightWatcher (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)