User talk:Dpbsmith/Archive08

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

Note: I will usually reply to your messages here, not on your own Talk page.

Reply from Maestroh

Re: John Tower

I don't know anything about that citation on the Tower article. I read that recently. I did not, however, put that in the article because I don't know anything about it. I thought it was rather crude and not worthy of mention myself, but as I've said - I'm unaware of any truth to it.

Incidentally, I did alter the Tower article several months back, nor am I a 'fan.' But it seems unfair to me for that accusation to be made. Sorry I can't help you. Maestroh

See also:

Old material has been moved to Archive07. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I take it back. The Wheeler material isn't sourced.)[edit]

Just FYI ... I recall seeing something in Quality Planning and Analysis ... Juran/Gryan ... about allowing a 1.0 sigma shift, but, Bill Smith added the .5 to allow for Motorola's terrible quality at the time. (Jim Winings)

Public Ivies[edit]

I changed one picture on the public ivies page, something most definitely not warranting a revert back to an older version. The pictures should provide insight into all the universities listed as "public ivies" and not just the ones whose pictures have already been on there for ages.

  • The set of pictures has been contentious and there is consensus that it should be limited to the eight schools originally named by Moll. If you think there should be a different set of pictures, please discuss and get consensus at Talk:Public Ivy first. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DISCUSSION symbolic anthropology article[edit]

July 8/9, 2006 There is an article for symbolic anthropology. But for some reason the link doesn't work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_anthropology I don't know...

... OK so I posted a question about how to fix this linking problem, I think it is item 119 at the bottom of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29

If you don't know how to fix the link problem, please don't take out VALID article links, even if they ARE red. Someone else may be able to figure out how to fix them. Thanks.

Also, please do a SEARCH for these links BEFORE you delete them. You will see that articles DO exist for these topics.

Just deleting nonfunctioning links does not help. There ARE articles on these topics! The help information tells us to go ahead and include links even if we don't know how to make them work, because someone else will know how. I am following the proper procedure by keeping in the red links.

...

How to respond to combative user Gekko[edit]

Hi. User Gekko just put what he called a "Warning" section on my user talk page calling me a troll and sockpuppet, the same personal tactic MBAguy used. Gekko did this today, even though I asked Gekko several times above, on your talk page, to please drop the AfD issue, as the admins have suggested: get over it, and move on. Gekko refuses to drop it, and now seems to be quickly escalating his campaign to the next level. This seems to be another MBAguy type situation all over again. Any suggestion on what should be done? Thanks. GO WHARTON 00:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added response below. Gekko 00:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GO WHARTON trolling[edit]

As you can see here [1], this user has instigated a conflict with me and so I looked into some of the allegations regarding his handle and detailed them on a warning on his talk page here [2]. I believe this user is basically behaving badly under a sockpuppet handle and trying to get Wharton students blamed for it. Gekko 00:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


...

As long as the two of you don't do it in article space, I don't care that much what the two of you do. Try not responding to each other. Try not to worry too much if you don't have the last word, and if "the last word" seems unfair.
Gekko, your concern for Wharton's reputation is admirable, but I don't think the world at large knows or cares about GO WHARTON's edits has been doing, and I don't think Wharton needs your protection.
GO WHARTON, repeat after me: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but if being accused of being a Yale School of Management student is the worst thing I'm ever called, my life will have been fortunate indeed."
Both of you, take a look at WP:RA and see if there isn't something that interests you, that has nothing to do with business schools
Now, I am going to attempt to "do as I say," and stop responding to messages on this topic. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice, I'm going to take it and try to stop responding to him. It's hard when he LIES, you know? But that's what trolls do, I shouldn't be surprised. I hope you're right about people not caring about Wharton being indirectly impugned like this. I think my warning on his talk page is probably the most I can do anyway, and should serve the function of disclaimer for anyone that actually does care to look into his edits. Gekko 01:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need to end your trolling, Gekko/MBAguy, as several users have repeatedly advised you during the last several days. You just promised Dpbsmith you would take his advice and "stop responding." But in the next two sentences, you regressed to your trolling tactic of calling me a liar and a troll. You are embarrassing yourself again. As I said before, take everyone's advice, let it go, and move on. GO WHARTON 03:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More recent events....[edit]

Thought you might want a couple of these before reading my note.

I was going to start my message by saying, "Since User:GO WHARTON's goings on peripherally and occasionaly overlap with yours...." but then got here and discovered half of your (admittedly, recently archived) talk page to be content related to that user, and figured you could probably use something to treat a headache. Anyway, this was posted at the administrator's notice board; it looks like someone (whoever could it be?!) is using sockpuppets to pick on GO WHARTON. I'm not suggesting your intervention, necessarily, but thought that, as you appear to have become a referee in this, you might at least want to know. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 02:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal anatomy[edit]

Thankyou for your comment. Bird anatomy seems the easiest, there is more than enough content in the bird article and bird skeleton article, so I have added a split tag, and am waiting a verdict. What is the normal process in this situation? Are you well learned in this subject? 'cos it would help :) mastodon 16:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not "well learned," and I have limited time to spend on the subject, but I've studied biology and I'll be glad to give a quick eyeball anything you do. Just let me know what articles you're working on. As I said, Wikipedia:Be bold. Wikipedia is founded on the idea that it is possible for people who are not authorities to produce authoritative articles. The big thing is to cite sources. (But of course, don't plagiarize, and it's a good idea not to use other encyclopedias as sources). If you don't get an answer after what seems like a reasonable period of time, just a) do it, and b) don't be too upset if someone then jumps in an undoes it. Wikipedia is based on correction after the fact, not approval before the fact. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I see someone thinks the article should not be split. Why don't you try creating some of the articles that don't exist at all, i.e. add content to Wikipedia rather than reorganizing existing content? Wikipedia by its nature tends to be uneven, unbalanced, and disorganized; the coverage we get depends on what people are voluntarily interested in working in. There's no way to order volunteers to give equal weight to all branches of anatomy.... Dpbsmith (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vestax[edit]

My issue is with including the ext link-- I think the company name would be sufficient: anyone who wants to look it up could certainly google it. Parenthetically, there seem to be enough people out there to whom $9000 is chump change that the "personal" adjective, while weird to the rest of us, might make sense. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 20:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "Currently, one company (Vestax) offers a disk recorder priced in the high four figures which enables "experienced professional users" to produce high-fidelity stereo vinyl recordings." Hope that is OK with you? -- Mwanner | Talk 20:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of proper nouns containing a bang[edit]

I've replied on the DRV page, sorry about the delay, things went a little crazy. Please let me know if you have any questions -- Tawker 01:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SI radiometry units[edit]

Hmmm. Not sure what you were thinking. :) Glad you caught it anyway. In general, recommended SI usage is to use exponents on units rather than "/" if the result of using the slash would be ambiguous. (e.g. kg·m-1·s-2 is preferred over kg/m·s2). Since some of the compound units in the template fall into this class, it's better to use exponents for all of them, for consistency.--Srleffler 13:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandeis[edit]

Your edit regarding Brandeis much better than mine, thanks.Incorrect 13:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're welcome. But this area is a minefield, of course. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doonesbury redux[edit]

Naturally, the people who teach introductory electromagnetism at MIT caught the Doonesbury strip where Alex asks about the two black boxes. Here's an instructor's explanation:

Alex isn't explaining the problem very clearly. It’s about the equivalence between Thevenin and Norton circuits. One can turn any two-terminal circuit that consists of emfs and resistors into
  • an emf plus a resistor in series (Thevenin), or
  • a current source plus a resistor in parallel (Norton).
They are electrically identical. When nothing is connected to their terminals, however, the resistor in the Norton circuit consumes power while the one in the Thevenin circuit doesn't. So the Norton circuit must be warmer than the Thevenin circuit. Clever, huh?

When the poll went up in the Doonesbury Town Hall to ask the readers which college Alex should attend (Rensselaer, Cornell or the Institute), I knew some kid at MIT would hack it. Guess what?

Voting was insane, rampant, ingenious, and impressively ruthless. An MIT student put up "Doonesbury Voting Hack", a web site (adorned with art borrowed from the Town Hall) which enabled would-be-ballot-stuffers to spew out over a million votes in a single night. [...] As for the question at hand — Where will Alex go to school? — the will, chutzpah, and bodacious craft of the voting public will be respected. A careful check of the applicable rulebook indicates that queering the results was not specifically prohibited. And by tradition, engineers, hackers and techfolk will assume that in a problem-solving situation of this nature, there is no box out of which they are not expected to climb. The Doonesbury Town Hall thanks all those who took the time and trouble to vote, even those who voted only once.
Ms. Doonesbury will be attending MIT.

One more delicious item for MIT in popular culture. Anville 16:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Methinks I recall some ditty about a box labelled "Ten amps no matter what," describing the logical consequences of trying to defeat the device.... Dpbsmith (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our amps go to eleven. Just thought I'd throw that in. Anyways, what's the deal with Doonesbury? I'm at MIT right now and I seem to have missed all the hubbub in the midst of cramming for finals. Isopropyl 17:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20060504
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20060510
Dpbsmith (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

college rankings[edit]

i think these rankings deserve mention. ;)


Emma Lazarus may have already won[edit]

Look no further than the Wikipedia article on her. Fortunately, that article cites two references.Ghosts&empties 17:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I had in mind were:
Heinrich Eduard Jacob (1949): The World of Emma Lazarus, New York: Schocken Books.
This article incorporates text from an edition of the New International Encyclopedia which is in the public domain.
It's likely that the Wikipedia article was lifted whole cloth from the New International Encyclopedia
Can I assume that your source for the detail was simply the Emma Lazarus article itself? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does Fifty Jewish Women Who Changed the World get the spelling of William Maxwell Evarts's name wrong? I changed the spelling in the Emma Lazarus article, but you should check the reference to see if they got it wrong or we copied it wrong. I didn't change the spelling in the ref. in that article, but it may need a [sic].... - Nunh-huh 19:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • THANK YOU! THANK YOU THANK YOU! I was going nuts doing searches on that name and coming up empty. Yes, that IS how they spell it, William Maxwell Evert[sic], as in "to turn inside-out." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penn's founding religion at Ivy League[edit]

Hey, I've been on a real-life (and thus by extension wiki-)vacation for the past week and change and haven't had much access to the 'net. I see that the editor with rather strong opinions about the religious roots of uPenn has returned; I'll continue monitoring the sitcheeation. (FWIW, I may not have been around to mop-smack the anon IP for disruption, but did get some good shots of light rail in San Francisco which I'll upload soon and place where relevant, so I suppose the 'pedia is better for my time away, right?) Regards, JDoorjam Talk 04:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HTMLCommentStrip on University of Pennsylvania[edit]

Regarding this edit, I've seen several different users involved in replacing <!-- enbedded HTML comments --> with those strings. Best I can figure, they are tokens in an external database somewhere. I have no clue where. I've asked several users involved in the changes, and they've been essentially non-responsive. If you figure out what's going on, I'd love to hear. DMacks 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think HTML comments in refs are bad karma and some kind of technical bug may be involved, but I'm not sure... Dpbsmith (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-linking from quotes discussion[edit]

Hi there. I've added a comment to the discussion here about Wiki-linking from quotes. As someone who has posted to this discussion, I'd appreciate any comments you might have. Thanks. Carcharoth 19:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion debate confusion[edit]

Hi again. As you are active in the discussion at the talk page of Wikipedia:Quotations_should_not_contain_wikilinks, I thought you might like to know that the proposal has been nominated for deletion here. I'm a little bit confused as to why the nomination was made in the first place, as you will see if you read my vote/comment. I'd appreciate your views as to what is going on. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norwood[edit]

good point about all these places around the world named after places from the 'founding fathers' 'home' country/ies. Norwood being a good example, but please dont get too upset about it. South Norwood is at the southern end of Norwood New Town. West Norwood is north of Norwood New Town. Historic cemetery at Norwood. A few remnants of the Great North Wood are still to be found in the area too. The area has its own Civic Society - the Norwood Society, but falls between two London Boroughs - Croydon & Lambeth. It also has its own public library that is not run by iether Borough. Unique.


Wikipedia:Deletion review/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)[edit]

You posted a number of questions there. You asked them to me directly. I have provided detailed answers there. Just letting you know -- thank you.

2001: A Space Odyssey This user thinks 2001: A Space Odyssey is the best science fiction film ever made.

Jason Palpatine 20:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC) What are the four pillars?[reply]

Hello? Anybody there?

  • I replied in the deletion review. I have opted not to express an opinion either way as to whether the deletion should be overturned. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But you did say something. That's what counts. Thank you for the input. -- Jason Palpatine 04:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show Boat[edit]

Yeah, you're right. I was just improving on what have gone before but didn't have the NPOV courage to do it the way you did. Well done! Hayford Peirce 03:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Ezra Cornell[edit]

That was created on the 10th so it didn't qualify for a speedy. I've made it a redirect to Cornell University School of Hotel Administration. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burlington Center Mall[edit]

I've built on your idea for a possible last-minute compromise. Come check it out. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An old timer writes[edit]

Hi Daniel, It's been a long time since I used to hang out at alt.quotations. Hope you're keeping well. Anyway, with respect to the inclusionist/deletionist thing, I try not to take sides. Taking sides tend to stop things being fun, as collaboration becomes confrontation. I guess by 2006 standards I'm a deletionist. There's too much popular culture in wikipedia, too many fundamentally uninteresting schools, too much stuff, and not enough insight into stuff. (Now don't get me wrong: I adore popular culture, but one of the things I like about it is its ephemerality). The real problem is that too many people can't make your distinction between information and knowledge. I don't know what should be in an online encyclopedia, but I'm fairly certain its not 4,000 word plot summaries of every episode of Doctor Who ever made. 1,000 words on each series, seems more reasonable. There's too much agglomeration of facts, and not enough precis.

The motto "Wikipedia is not paper" has become the enemy of conciseness. There's a peculiar idea that we should cover everything we can in as much detail as (meta)physically possible, enumerating every fact about a subject, with no regard as to which are actually important and which aren't.

But those battles have been lost, and I've lost the will to fight the remaining battles using anything but mild sarcasm on AfD (again, I simply don't find being a volunteer bureaucrat a lot of fun).

The odd thing is, back in the day I was an inclusionist. I got into an edit war with Larry Sanger for slipping a mention of the Sex Pistols into the God Save The Queen article.

The other thing that bothers me is the general standard of prose styling. Not spelling and grammar (though those are frequently dreadful), but the fact that, in the rush to keep adding facts to an article, no-one seems to be interested in writing good sentences, or putting those sentences in an order that produces lucid prose.

OK, I'm rambling now.

Gareth.

List of channel 20 TV stations in the United States[edit]

Until recently, there were lists of VHF TV stations in the United States. Then, CoolKatt number 99999 started to add some UHF stations. Now, you nominated one for Afd. Please negotiate with CoolKatt number 99999 to make sure you can agree on whether UHF lists are acceptable. Georgia guy 01:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the following comment was originally left on my talk page. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say that I appreciate your principled approach, and your well-considered comments.
I particularly liked the way you mapped out what needs to be done: "References would help. And maybe intros regarding how all being on the same channel number in different places connects the channels... but be careful not to cross into original research."
If someone actually did this... but I mean really did it, not some contrived window-dressing but some surprising-to-me, important, interesting connection between every station occupying channel 11, whether on broadcast or cable... yeah, I'd withdraw my nomination. ("Because of the significance of the number 11 to members of thus-and-such religious denomination, many of the television stations on this channel are owned by this denomination." Like that...)
(In the case of this particular topic, I don't happen to believe this is possible.) Dpbsmith (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! : ) I'm not sure about a topic-wise connection, but there are certainly technical connections, at least for broadcast stations. For example, from the article Television channel, in North America, "channel 2" refers to the broadcast frequency of 55.25 MHz video/59.75 MHz audio, and may be shared by many different television stations or cable-distributed channels depending on one's location and service provider. The broadcast frequency does provide some sort of connection, which can probably be easily verified for all of the lists. As for cable/satellite (non-broadcast), I guess it's up to the company, but perhaps further research would reveal more. Channel 2 might also be somewhat interesting, given the history of why it is the first channel instead of Channel 1[3]. (Yes, I know that's a bad reference, but its existence suggests that a better reference may exist somewhere.) Anyways, I'm willing to help some with those articles, but I was hoping the people who created them / people interested in editing TV-related articles would take on the project mostly. Perhaps we should move this discussion to the AfD? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the articles should be deleted. I understand what you're saying, but I don't buy it, and I don't want to add too much chatter to the AfD myself. I'll grant that certain specific channels have certain specific characteristics. For example, all the low channels numbers are premium airspace because they propagate over long distances, so they tend to be the older, bigger, wealthier stations. But I still don't think that a "list of television stations assigned to 55.25 MHz" makes any more sense than "list of television stations with the letter Z in their call names." Dpbsmith (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It could be useful to travellers / people who discuss television, but live in different areas. (Also see Television channel for ideas.) I'm not saying it would make the lists particularly great, but that, along with my other reccomendations (referencing, and conversion to tables with other relevant information) would make them signficantly better than they are now. (The tables would allow people to compare/contrast.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying. It makes some sense. But I don't happen to agree. I just don't think the topic itself is encyclopedic. Others may differ. If someone actually were to improve one or more of these articles, which doesn't seem to have happened, I would try to be fair in assessing the improvements.
I would certainly have no objection to userfying them. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment regarding userfying them. If the original contributor doesn't want to improve them, I'd be happy to adopt them in my user space. (I don't think improving them even as much as I suggested before the AfD closes is feasible.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MIT[edit]

I loved the W20 Stratton Center anecdote. I will pass it along to my tour guide friends since I already graduated. Madcoverboy 23:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke ranking[edit]

I'm looking for the source of where I found it. You can remove the statement if you like; I added it thinking I'd be able to find the source again. When I find it, I'll re-add the sentence. (I think it was 1 sometime in the 90's). LaszloWalrus 01:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K-Town[edit]

Those K streets run through all of Chicago, not just North Lawndale. 75.3.5.247 02:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, but numerous sources identify "K-Town" not as the entire length of these streets, but as an area in North Lawndale through which these streets run. Are you saying that other communities have their own K-Town's? If so, do you have a published source for this? Dpbsmith (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snellen Eye Chart Type[edit]

What is the font type you used to create the Snellen chart image?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Snellen06.png

It's not a font at all. The letters of the real Snellen chart are not taken from a printer's font, but are geometrical constructions. They are not called "letters," but "optotypes." They designed so that the entire optotype is five units high, the black "lines" are one unit thick, and the white spaces between the lines are one unit thick. I produced my Snellen chart by using a drawing program to draw geometrical shapes over a scan of a real Snellen chart, scanned from a rather small image in a book. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago alumni list[edit]

I did propose an expansion of the alumni list several times before, and since I did not receive any strong objections. So I decided that it was worth to try it and see what the reaction to it is. All that I did initially was add the informative phrases preceding the names that were already present. Afterwards, I decided that several notable names were missing from it and added them as well. Now that I think about it, a few of the names that I included probably should have been left off. If you feel that certain ones should be omitted, by all means edit the list. If you believe that the original list fits the article better, feel free to restore it. Again, my edit was not at all meant to be a permanent list of the alumni, but an attempt at making it a little more informative. mcshadypl 04:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • At this point I'm about 99% sure T. S. Eliot was not faculty or alumnus and should certainly not be on the list. And I don't think Carl Sagan should be. I'm a little tired of always playing the heavy on this, so I'm not going to remove them, but I am tagging T. S. Eliot with "citation needed." Dpbsmith (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A second opinion about Milton Academy "scandals"[edit]

(Speaking of schools claiming T. S. Eliot) I recently did a major overhaul to Milton Academy; as part of the "spring cleaning" I removed a scandals section which I thought didn't add anything to the article. It seemed to me to be the sort of stuff that wouldn't matter in five, ten, or more years but was merely there for its value as sensationalism. Given that you edit in these circles, I was hoping you'd give me a second opinion. Thanks, JDoorjam Talk 18:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't have put it in... I wouldn't have removed it if I'd seen it... and I wouldn't have restored it if someone deleted it.
Here's why I'm so perfectly balanced. First, it's sourced. I sort of like trivia... provided people take it seriously enough to spend at least five minutes checking facts and providing references. It's sort of a principle of mine not to delete even the cruftiest stuff if it's sourced.
Second... hmmm... let me check... Ah. I was going to say it was reasonably notable, but that's only because I read the Globe and watch Boston stations and these items was all over the local media. A quick check of the New York Times does NOT turn up anything about these stories. So, I take it back. It was only locally notable.
Third... one of these items might have fit the category of "recent news which happens to be negative," but lumping two of them together does start to raise neutrality issues. These might deserve mention in a "history" or "recent news" section. But having a "scandals at Milton" section does start to sound like someone wants to take this hoity-toity school down a peg.
So... I dunno. If I'd had time I might have changed the section title to "Notable events at Milton Academy" and tried to list a few more, uh, representative items.
The hockey-team story did fascinate me, because it was clear... from the day after the story broke, I believe... that it was as consensual as anything of the sort can possibly be (my wife agreed with me about that, by the way). It raised the interesting question of what is the appropriate disciplinary action against young men who, apparently, did nothing more than to accept something willingly offered from someone who was underage... but not very underage. As I recall, the upshot was actually quite reasonable. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John D. MacDonald[edit]

Hello DPBS: I see we are also McGee fans. Great stuff; I wish I could have told JDM so, the way I told you about my (occasionally qualified) admiration for your father's writings. Wspencer11 20:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jefferson[edit]

Thanks for intervening and reverting the edit warring of User:Welsh4ever76. Welsh, of course, simply reverted your change, so I've reported him for violating the 3RR -- for what it's worth. Kinda sad when people try to censor the truth because they simply don't like the facts. Peace. deeceevoice 19:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the use of the word canon...[edit]

Just a quick note to let you know I've posted a solution to your linguistical conundrum. Hope you find it satisfactory! -- Byakuren 06:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: schools[edit]

Thanks for the note of support. The really depressing part is that I bet it is a bunch of high school teachers who behaving this way. KarenAnn 15:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I doubt it... I think it's part of the general "inclusionist/deletionist" factionalism. But I'd prefer to take this to email if you want to chat further. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are wrong. The person who did the spamming that turned the Wikipedian ideal of a civil community into a farce is a tearcher I am rather sure. I would email you if I had a clue how to do so, and if you could somehow make me feel better about this whole thing. KarenAnn 17:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Use the "E-mail this user" link under "toolbox" at the left. You will need to include your email address somewhere... either in the message body or in your Preferences... if you want me to be able to reply. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for your opinion, #2[edit]

Dpbsmith, I was hoping you would take a look at the discussion going on at Talk:Education in the United States regarding the "status ladder" of U.S. colleges. It currently smacks of uncited opinion to me, but I think some mention of school reputation might be salvageable. Given that you are the de facto resident expert on NPOVerty in college-related articles, this might be of interest to you; I was hoping you would take a gander and weigh in. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 07:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced Sources For Fictional University Alumni Abound On Wikipedia[edit]

Dpbsmith, please also go to the following pages and list their fictional characters section as "unreferenced": List of Columbia University people, List of Princeton University people, List of Cornell University people, List of Harvard University people, List of Brown University people, List of Yale University people. Thank you. -- Crimson3981 22:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • P. S. Much unreferenced material abounds on Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like, not as[edit]

I noticed that, a long time ago, you added the Winston example to the Like page. You might be interested in the new page I created, which is already at good article status after one day: "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should." Please contribute to it if you have more sources. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming since you skipped my comment, that you have nothing to add? Please respond on my talk page; I put a lot of time into writing the article and I really do want to know what you thought of it. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 20:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
???? I didn't add it to the Like page; User:Anthony Appleyard did. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rspw[edit]

Please look at the entry for rec.sport.pro-wrestling now. I have removed the unverifiable information (which one user is still trying to insert but nevermind). Also, rspw.org is only an external link, it is not cited as a source. The only source needed on the entry is the Google post count, which i have cited. Please let me know if the entry meets your standards now. Thank you! TruthCrusader 07:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's much better and I thank you for your good-faith work on the article.
But.
I still see a problem with the lack of any citations of published sources meeting WP:RS that say the newsgroup is of any importance. I really, really want to see something like an article in a wrestling magazine that recommends rec.sport.pro-wrestling as a good forum, or something like that, or a news story in which a wrestler mentions that he always checks out rec.sport.pro-wrestling to see what people are saying about him, or something like that.
I do appreciate that the actual nomination of this particular article could very well represent a bad-faith action on the part of someone involved with the article.
I don't think I'm ready to change my vote. It probably doesn't matter, looking at the current AfD I think it's very likely to survive.
Actually I find UncleG's comment fairly convincing. OK. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of the existence of the information you added to the entry. I must admit that's pretty cool. Thank you. TruthCrusader 15:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Google Book Search, http://books.google.com and A9 search with "books" selected as the only checkbox, http://www.a9.com are very powerful. (And there is enough difference in coverage to warrant using both. Google's search feature is much better than A9's, but A9 frequently has material that is unavailable or prohibited from viewing in Google). Dpbsmith (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JB196 is continuing to remove the NZ information on his own authority without discussing it first on the entry talk page. TruthCrusader 21:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Indefinite and fictitious large numbers#In popular culture[edit]

Re this section of this article, I think it would be helpful if you could indicate which citations you believe to be unsourced. Spacepotato 00:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The source for the quotation from the episode "Milhouse of Sand and Fog" of The Simpsons is the episode "Milhouse of Sand and Fog" of The Simpsons. Spacepotato 08:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, because there's no way to verify such a "reference." It has to be a published source and you need to give something more specific. There's no way to cite a specific reference in a television program. I've personally suggested that if an episode has been released on a DVD, it has been "published," and the ASIN number of the DVD and the track number/scene number and number of minutes into the episode would do, but that's just my own idea and while I think it conforms with the spirit of verifiability, it does not conform with the letter of current policy, which basically requires a print text reference.
To say "The source for the quotation from the episode 'Milhouse of Sand and Fog' of The Simpsons is the episode 'Milhouse of Sand and Fog' of The Simpsons" is like saying "The source for 'the best moment of my presidency was when I caught a 7.5 pound largemouth bass in my lake.' is President Bush." Dpbsmith (talk) 09:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assume by print you mean text, as a source might be online. I don't see any policy prohibiting non-text sources. If Wikipedia did have such a policy it would be foolish, as there is nothing which makes a source image or source video inherently less verifiable than a source text. Spacepotato 10:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I mean "text."
The policies in question are WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS.
I am not particularly interested in whether or not you think these policies are "foolish."
I'll respect any good-faith effort to meet the spirit of WP:V, but saying "the source for my statement about a broadcast is the broadcast" doesn't do it. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correctly, you have three objections to the citation as it stands.
  1. The source is broadcast, and therefore not publicly available.
  2. The source is video and not textual.
  3. The location of the quote in the episode is not specified.
I will leave point 1 aside for the moment. As for point 2, you have cited three pages. One of them (WP:V) is policy, and another (WP:RS) is a guideline. The third page (WP:CITE) is a style guide and not relevant to the question of which sources are citable. As for WP:V and WP:RS, I can only repeat that neither of these pages prohibits non-text sources, nor is there any reason to do so. Finally, I agree with point 3.
Moving on to the other popular culture quotes in the article, I would like to ask whether, in your view, the Stevie Wonder song title would be adequately sourced by providing an album on which it appears and discographical information for this album; the same question for the Ludacris quote; and whether the reference to Life, the Universe and Everything would be adequately sourced by the inclusion of biographical information and a page number. Spacepotato 21:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my view: the Stevie Wonder song, yes. As an extra added attraction, a link to any convenient reasonably authoritative website, e.g. Amazon.com, that gives a track listing, would be good. (In fact I would probably accept it as "good enough").
Life, the Universe and Everything: yes. (Assume that's a typo for bibliographic information). Any edition, ISBN and page number.
Ludacris: that's trickier, because the reference is not in the title, and I don't honestly know where to suggest finding a source citation for the lyrics. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re Ludacris: personally I'd accept the manufacturer's catalog number for the CD, track number, and approximate time into the track. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the essential principle here is that it should be possible to check the fact with about the same amount of labor and resources as it takes to check a conventional print reference. For a conventional print reference, the book or journal would need to have been "published" and readily available in a good research library; someone wishing to check it would need to obtain the book from a library, then flip to the specified page. Since CDs and DVDs are just as "published" and available for purchase as a book. I'm not sure whether they're as available from libraries, but I think they are.
What doesn't fly is personal testimony, or reference to material which is not easy to obtain independently. For example, in List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder, "Adam Ant has spoken openly on television about his condition"[4] is not good enough. On the other hand, "Adam Ant is open about having bipolar disorder: see Adam and the fall, an art.telegraph profile which describes a 2003 Channel 4 television program, "The Madness of Prince Charming," detailing his mental illness" is fine. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classical music[edit]

Hi there, I am writing you because you were one of the contributors to the discussion last year about moving Classical music to European classical music. Well, the decision to do that did not have great effects - it has created a lot of confusion. Specifically, people editing articles that contain references are almost exclusively using the link classical music, which of course leads to a disambig page. They literally always mean European classical music in their context. So, it is creating a nightmare for us folks at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, where Classical music remains the number one offender as far as the number of articles that link to a disambig page. Which shouldn't happen. I think the crux of the issue is that English-language editors think "classical music" and they know what they mean - and we are trying to tell them that they really mean something else.

(Deep breath) So, we need to try to solve this issue. My inclination is to move European classical music back to Classical music, and then move the disambig page to Classical music (disambiguation), which currently just redirects to Classical music. What do you think? --Aguerriero (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Hey, I've thought all along that the article currently called European classical music should be called Classical music, because the naming convention says to use the most common name (not the most sophisticated, the most cosmopolitan, the most technically correct), and because the dictionary definition of classical music is "3. Music a. Of or relating to European music during the latter half of the 18th and the early 19th centuries. b. Of or relating to music in the educated European tradition, such as symphony and opera, as opposed to popular or folk music." I.e. the dictionary says classical music = European music, and the only question to my mind is whether Classical music should be about sense a, classical-not-romantic, or sense b, classical-not-popular. And of the two usages, I think b is far more frequent. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please weigh in at Talk:Classical_music#Requested_move. I have called for a consensus to be reached. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPenn Window Love[edit]

I've fixed University_of_Pennsylvania#Window_Love to make it more clear that it was rather significant. Philly is a large media market, and Penn is a really important and unique Ivy League school. Local reps of free speech orgs also chimed in. - CobaltBlueTony 00:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. It was primarily the source citation I was after. The legal subtleties mentioned in the story you cite are interesting. (I'm aware of Penn's importance). Dpbsmith (talk) 10:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent resource[edit]

I know you're a fan of Google Books, and so wanted to make sure you were aware of scholar.google.com, which is essentially the same sort of thing, except specifically focused on "reviewed papers, theses, books, abstracts, and articles, from academic publishers, professional societies, preprint repositories, universities and other scholarly organizations.[5]" What's also nice is that, unlike Google books, far more often the entire article or essay is available, so it's easier to get context. Enjoy, JDoorjam Talk 23:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... but... really? I knew about, but have been fairly disappointed in Scholar, which, the times I've tried it, has rarely has done more but take me to PubMed and an abstract. Conversely, in the past few months, Google's library project has started to come online and if you check the "Full View" button gives you a quite a lot of fully-digitized pre-1923 material... Incidentally, www.a9.com's "book search" is much less good at searching than Google Books, but while there's a large overlap with Google Books a9 will not infrequently have material Google is missing... and sometimes will show more, or at least different pages than Google.
I just tried a search (on "Back Bay") and the first hit took me to the JSTOR website and the message "You are trying to access material included in JSTOR, an online journal archive made available to researchers through participating libraries. Unfortunately, you do not have access to JSTOR from your current location." Are you are using Google Scholar from an academic institution? Maybe that's why you're getting better results...
I haven't quite figured it out, but the same search on Books and Scholar will often show a lot of overlap. Apparently a Scholar search also searches some? most? all? of the Books database?
By the way, Google Books will sometimes say that a page is restricted in the search results, but will show it to me anyway. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humm[edit]

I just got a message that someone changed my vote on the Benefiber nomination from Delete to Speedy Keep! Have I stepped on another sacred hot-spot? This person reverted it back, but what is going on? Over Benefiber???? KarenAnn 00:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing in particular is going on. Just bad behavior. No special significance. In general, editing someone else's comment is, obviously, considered very pushy or rude... at the very least. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


History of diploma mills[edit]

Are you by any chance interested in the topic of the history of diploma mills? I started working on one in my userspace a while ago, but gave up after realizing that several probably useful U.S. sources were unavailable to me (particularly Robert H Reid, American degree mills, a study of their operations and of existing and potential ways to control them, Washington, American Council on Education [1959], which might provide some of the early-to-mid 20th century and possibly some 19th century material). I could move it to article space if someone with access to good American libraries would be interested in working on it. It seems that more could be written on "Dr" John Buchanan and his business in Philadelphia, and that part could possibly be split off to an article of its own. Uppland 11:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wouldn't say I have access to good American libraries--actually I do, but at the moment not the spare time to access them--however, I see this particular volume is available via interlibrary loan from my local public library, so I'll order it and take a look. I don't promise to do much, but, yeah, it sounds like an interesting topic. Haven't read your article-in-progress yet. More later. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting new word[edit]

I live in Tucson and have been invited out to dinner tonight at the home of a Thai lady. A former Chinese g/f who is also attending tried to give me directions to get there, then the Thai lady herself did. Then I finally got on the Internet and used both Mapquest and Yahoo maps, and finally had to call the Thai lady again. Now I *think* I know where I'm going to have to go. Tucson is a very easy city to drive around, 99% of the streets are on a North-South, East-West grid, and all the numbering is very regular. Except, it now appears, there are one or two small areas in which the streets run on diagonals, from NE to SE, say. These streets are called "Stravenues", as in East Norfolk Stravenue. Apparently this word exists only in Tucson. No wonder I was baffled. Particularly with my Asian friends also not getting some other key words quite right as they gave instructions. Have you ever heard of this weird "Stravenue" business? Hayford Peirce 23:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Never. Never. Not ever. However, such regionalisms are not unusual... for example, in New Orleans, median strips are called "neutral grounds," in New England traffic circles are called "rotaries..." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Innaresting. I grew up in New England, so I guess rotaries seems normal to me. Aren't they called that in England also? They used to have a ton of them there, so tight that they were practically unnagivable. And that's a weird N.O. phrase!
  • A Google Books search on "Stravenue" gives four hits. The two that are not restricted are both mentions of street address in Tucson, and one of the restricted one is "Index to Arizona News in the Arizona Daily Star - Page 355," which is a Tucson-area paper. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's essentially what my own searches turned up. But the U.S. Post Office apparently recognizes it and, I think, uses "Stra" as its official abbreviation. Or maybe it's Strav. Hayford Peirce 00:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that too in my random Googling; it was STRA. The term is not familiar outside of Tucson. It would be interesting to know its origin. Quite possibly the idea and names were invented by one particular developer, especially if all of them are in a localized area. A quick look at Google Maps suggests that a) perhaps they were forced into a diagonal alignment by the presence of a railroad track? b) I see that there are some NW-ES and NE-SW streets such as S. Yuma Street, E. Mesa St, E. Phoenix St. that are not "Stravenues." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, the areas where the Stravenues exist are next to, say, a couple of fairly major highways, where housing developments had to be shoved in as best they could. Since, as far as I know, all numbered "Streets" in Tucson run east to west, and all numbered "Avenues" run north to south, I imagine that some developer who was forced to put in diagonal streets because of other constraints thought that he was being very clever by inventing the word Stravenue from a combination of Street and Avenue. The other streets that you mention as not being on the grid are, I think, old, OLD streets, from the days when cattle tracks laid down the routes for streets, as they did in Boston. Hayford Peirce 05:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in case one of us is going to write a short article about these things... let's start assembling the references. I don't understand what this official USPS list is saying. Are all these abbreviations used? Dpbsmith (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what the P.O. is saying is that there's a word called "Stravenue" and here are about 9 different ways that letterwriters try to shorten it on their envelope addresses, and here is the one OFFICIAL way that the P.O. computers recognize it, ie, STRA. So I guess that if the PO gets a letter addressed to "302 Bailey Strave", its computer will read it as "302 Bailey Stra" and will then stamp the appropriate barcode on the bottom of the envelope. When you think of the gazillions of badly (or illiteratly) addressed letters the PO must get daily, it's wonder that any of them get delivered at all!Hayford Peirce 20:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what a local friend just emailed me: "The stravenues were there when I was a kid growing up in the fifties. I remember my mom making fun of the term, though I don’t think we knew they existed only in Tucson."
I'll check out the USPS list -- I know that they have an official set of permitted abbreviations.
Is there an easy way to get a comprehensive list of Tucson Stravenues? Some that show up in a Google search include: E. 42nd Stravenue, S. Bryant Stravenue, N. Cerius Stravenue, S. Cherrybell Stravenue, E. Dover Stravenue, E. Fairland Stravenue, S. Helena Stravenue, S. Holly Stravenue, S. Howard Stravenue, . Kelvin Stravenue, E. Monthan Stravenue, S. Miramonte Stravenue.
I'll see if I can find a list of them. I have an enormous wall map of Tucson and I've just located two clusters of them, one down by the Benson Highway (which runs on a diagonal), where I was last night, and another cluster by Aviation Highway, which also runs on a diagonal. Presumably there are others, since the Benson Highway ones are too new to have been there in the 50s.
Another puzzle to me is that in most cities I've been in where streets are given names like "East this" there is usually a single continuous street, divided into parts named "East this" and "West this," and, typically, there is a family of streets named that way with the change from East to West occurring at some conspicous main thoroughfare... whose name is not all that uniform but is not infrequently named "Division Street" or "Main Street." In Tucson, I am completely baffled as to the purpose of the "E" and "W" and "N" and "S" designations, which, looking at the Google map, serve no obvious purpose... and I see anomalies like "E Sunland Vis" (Vis?) turning, not into W Sunland Vis but into S Sunland Vis... and not for any obvious reason at any obvious dividing point. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tucson is actually pretty logical. There's a central point at Broadway and Stone which is Ground Zero. (They're major EW and NS streets.) Everything north of Broadway has an N. attached to it if it's heading more or less north. And ditto for S. and south of Broadway. Everything west of Stone has a W. attached to it if it's more or less heading towards the Pacific Ocean. And ditto for E. and east of Stone. Some streets, particularly in the Foothills, wind a bit, so at points you'll get a N. street that actually heads E. for a while.
What's somewhat confusing about Tucson is that some of the *major* roads get interrupted by the (dry) river or other geographical features and there's no physical road for a mile or so. But then, a couple of miles further on, the road starts up again -- *with the same name*! It's baffling to newcomers. But is it worse than the French habit, say, in which a major boulevard starts out as Avenue de Gaulle, suddenly becomes Blvde Clemenceau, then Rue Michelin, then Avenue Foch, then Blvde Cliche, say, all on the same, uninterrupted road? That was always baffling to me when I was driving through France. And when I lived in Tahiti, the main waterfront road through town had 3 or 4 name changes in perhaps a mile.... Hayford Peirce 18:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The next time I'm in the neighborhood of a Stravenue (they're all pretty distant from me), I'll try to remember to take my camera and I'll get a photo of one of their street signs. Then, if I can get a little precise info from the public library, I'll start a very modest article about them. Hayford Peirce 22:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Litclass[edit]

FYI, a number of comments you've made to this user may have gone unnoticed as they were placed on the user page rather than the talk page... -- Scientizzle 17:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Duh. Oops. I just started to copy it to the talk page, but on the whole it's water over the dam now so I'm just going to remove it. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entry for deletion?[edit]

FYI, I noticed in the article for my hometown (Erie, PA) that there's a link to an article on Waldameer Park, but the linked article seems to be nothing but an advertisement. Is that kosher? You know much more than I do about how WP works so I will just point it out to you. Wspencer11 21:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Firth Wspencer11 14:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Jim Shapiro[edit]

What you wrote on the RfD was interesting. I wonder if there is a way to suggest to Wikipedia to have a rule for speedy deletion under those circumstances?jawesq 01:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rule exists already, if it is a re-creation of material previously voted for deletion. The problem is that I can't find anything but my memory that says it was. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually 3 of us now think it deserves speedy deletion because the purpose of the article is to attack Jim Shaprio. It serves no other purpose. It might be helpful if you add to your deletion comments if you agree with this point. Gfwesq 03:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review[edit]

An administrator deleted the article Jim Shapiro under speedy deletion. The author is now challenging it on the Deletion review. If you would come there to weigh in, I would appreciate it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Jim_Shapiro jawesq 01:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Boch[edit]

FWIW, just happened to notice someone independently recreated Ernie Boch. --Bletch 11:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting. Created about a week ago, so probably not WP:POINT in response to my notes. I've made it a redirect. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you apparently created the Jim Shapiro article in 2004... you'd probably know: am I totally out to lunch in believing it had ever been deleted? Has it in fact existed for nearly two years? Dpbsmith (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if it has been deleted, it somehow got recreated without my knowledge, which is certainly possible. Odds are that if User:Tyrenius had not got involved, I would have been blissfully unaware of the recent Jim Shapiro hullaballoo. --Bletch 22:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Shapiro[edit]

Your comments on deletion review were interesting, and I rather agree. I wonder how one could find out if the article was created, deleted, then recreated.

It should all be plain in the article history. I'm afraid the odds are that I'm mistaken.

I have only been editing Wikipedia a few months. I had never heard of Jim Shapiro before I ran across this article. I was appalled when I saw it, since it appeared to be such a hit piece. It appears that this character deserved to have his license suspended, but it doesn't appear to be appropriate for Wikipedia. My complaint has been that there have been entirely too much lawyer-bashing in Wikipedia, usually sourcing to "Overlawyered", a blatantly political site. Speedy delete was surely appropriate as it appeared when deleted. With the overhaul on the user's talk page, there are sources, but the article would still merit an AfD for non-notability. Anyway, thanks for your comments.jawesq 15:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that the original article was more "about" Overlawyered than "about" a colorful, controversial local Rochester character. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't update pages[edit]

Hello Dan: I have been trying for days to make some fairly small changes to the following two pages, and I can never get beyond the "edit page" page. The system hangs, or I get a "page cannot be displayed" error. Any suggestions?

The pages are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peasants%27_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Sea_Symphony_%28Vaughan_Williams%29

Thanks in advance! Wspencer11 18:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you look, you'll see that your edits to Talk:Peasants' War and to A Sea Symphony (Vaughan Williams) actually did "take."
I've seen this on occasion. I have these observations:
It usually happens when the system is heavily loaded.
When it does happen, it usually happen during section edits. When it happens to me, I simply do whole page edits instead, and find they are much more reliable (although, of course, more subject to edit conflicts if anyone else is working on the same article at about the same time).
When it does happen, usually the edits have actually occurred. It's just that for some reason the system fails to automatically show you the edited page.
When it does happen, sometimes the edits don't become visible for a few minutes after committing them.
Therefore: when it happens, assume that the edit has probably been accepted, and come back and look at the page again a few minutes later. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merci! I actually checked the edits at home last night and they were not there then, so I re-did them (at home I use a Mac and Safari, not that that's going to be a factor), and they took right away. May well be a timing thing or something...no biggie. Thanks again and I will defintiely bear your thoughts in mind in the future! Wspencer11 13:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Applying the WP:CORP criteria for products and services[edit]

UKPhoenix79 has cited several independently sourced product reviews in magazines, to demonstrate that the products satisfy the WP:CORP criteria for products and services. Please revisit the discussion with an eye to determining whether the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied by these published works (and any others that can be found), and thus whether fixing the article is a matter of cleaning it up using sources other than just the advertising and press releases put out by Bose itself, rather than deleting it. Uncle G 12:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Screw it, it's advertising and it can't be fixed. If Wikipedians are willing to tolerate product-porn from worshipful fans of corporate advertising programs, fine. I'll vote against them when they come up in AfD and try to minimize the amount of work or emotional investment I expend when the articles are kept. If someone wants to blank the article and restart it from scratch I'll grant that it's not impossible that there could be an article, but nothing in the present article is usable. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • P. S. Did I mention that I own a pair of Bose QuietComfort 2's and I love them? Dpbsmith (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you are doing[edit]

You are obviously an extremely bright - if that is the word - person and I appreciate your attempts to demonstrate professionalism on the afd pages and think you do it very tactfully and constructively. Mattisse 01:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. -- looking at the above message to you. Benefiber! Benefiber! At least Bose is a scale or two (at least) above that -- but I haven't looked at the articles in question.
Actually, I ultimately ended up voting "Weak, feeble, half-hearted keep" because on doing some searches in Google Books and www.a9.com I turned up a handful of references in novels like "next to an elderly woman who plugged her sound-killing Bose headphones into a Sony discman" and "Grabbing her iPod, she lay down on the bed, put on her Bose headphones, and began listening to Eminem at full volume"--that latter from Jackie Collins. So I reluctantly concluded that Bose noise-cancelling headphones are actually well-enough known to conceivably rate an article. Too bad the present article is unsalvageable IMHO. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V[edit]

I'd like to describe your last post at WP:V, but the words I'd like to use are not very nice, and I'd probably cross the line into WP:NPA. So instead I want you to read my comment on User:Daduzi's talk page because that thoroughly explains why none of you take the five minutes required to see that I'm right, your wrong, end of story. There's no leeway here. You're all just wrong - with the exception of the few who have said the exact same thing on Talk:The Guardian. Tchadienne 17:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your restraint. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Source for Penn's $5.148 billion endowment?[edit]

I agree, this revert war is quite silly. I personally do not know where the $5.148 billion figure comes from. I suspect that it is a non published figure from someone who works for or within the University. Most likely an undergraduate student who has access to Penn's records. I also concur that the number used needs to be cited. The only reason I reverted the figure back was because I believed that it was the agreed upon figure. In hindsight, even though the current figure is almost three years old, we should use that number unless someone can provide a source (on or off line). Either or will do. Best. Mcorcoran 19:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Cheers. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your opinion sought at WP:LIST talk[edit]

I've made a proposal here, and am seeking feedback. Best,--Anthony Krupp 14:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mutoscope Article Corrections/Deletions[edit]

In reference to your "Edit" on the "Mutoscope" article, the "Mutoscopes" (Old and new) do exist, and are out on two webpages that I have seen so far.

On "Importance", it was no more important than the inclusion of the "Mutoscope Cards" section, hence the inclusion.

The third reason and connection for the inclusion is that the "Mutoscope" is that the Old films from the "Mutoscope" machines were being released (i.e. Connection with old Mutoscopes).

The "New" films inclusion was because they were coined (Named) "Mutoscopes" and short films. Again, this related to the article no more than the "Mutoscope cards" which is in no way connected with the "Mutoscope" machine, except in name only (This is why I went on that line of contributing).

On your last comment, my inclusion did not reflect on the "Complex corporate history of the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company", nor was intended to. I included it since that company was the one producing and releasing them. As I had posted on the other discussion page, I feel there is a certain bias in regards to anything mentioned or included about the other "Biograph" company. It is a "Hot potato" that even had me being accused by certain other "Editors" of being affiliated with the company. that is unusual and almost to the point of paranoia, which is ridiculous and also completely against Wikipedia policy.

Everyone is suppose to be able to equally, and freely add and contribute without any harassment. But this has been taken up with the Wiki-Board already. Also, as long as the sources are "Verifiable" (And this can be one or more acredited sources), there should be no radical deletions of contributions or inclusions.

However, because of this, I have deleted any and all information that does not directly pertain too the "Mutoscope" machine in the Mutoscope article, and will continue to do so.

I do agree with the "Crystal Ball" and until there is more information on the Mutoscope releases, then that is acceptable, but I am now getting out of my realm which is film history. --Roger the red 20:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't "accused" of being affiliated with the new American Mutoscope & Biograph, you were simply asked if you were, which seems to have upset you very much. You called that "completely against Wikipedia policy." What Wikipedia policy? — Walloon 15:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, I want to thank you for enlightening me on the "Crystal Ball" inclusion and on that policy. When I checked there were literally hundreds of examples of exactly what you discussed, company prototion, and future plans that are unverified. Now, when I have the time, I can correct and delete as many of these as possible with the film companies listed on Wikipedia. It is a nice diversion from just the film history. This keeps Wikipedia from being a "Promotional" grandstand for any company. I have alot of work ahead, editing every film company listed, but it will take time. Thanks, --Roger the red 14:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of automobiles that were commercial failures up for deletion[edit]

Hi,

You have taken part in the AfD process for List of successful automobiles and voted delete. The decision was unanimous and the article was subsequently deleted. Now a corresponding article, List of automobiles that were commercial failures, is up for deletion for the same reasons. It would be only logicial and just to have them both deleted, so I cordially invite you to take part in the new discussion.

Regards, Bravada, talk - 09:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utor, fruor[edit]

Especally since you're right (at least about utor; I don't remember the list. Kudos to him who does.) Septentrionalis 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have suffered from depression[edit]

Hi, I saw you worked on List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder. Do you think List of people who have suffered from depression should/could be merged with that? That article is a totally unsourced mess. I recently removed some entries and wanted to source it when I discovered that other list. It would save a lot of work for sure. Cheers, Garion96 (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better citation needed tag[edit]

Per your comment on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, I threw together a {{betterfact}} template, which sticks a "better citation needed" superscript tag into an article. Seem reasonable? If so, it should be added to the table at Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes#For inline article placement. Anville 17:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Damn, I just did the same thing at "better citation needed." I'll delete it and use yours. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I just added my new brainchild to the template messages list. Anville 17:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dpbsmith/Archive08&oldid=1139100055"