User talk:Dpbsmith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Lists, lists, lists

I noticed your comment on the list talk page, and it happens to correspond exactly to a guideline that I have already proposed here. Feel free to read it and let me know what you think. Best wishes, AdamBiswanger1 16:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I am writing to inform you, and many others, that an AfD in which you voted delete, List of automobiles that were commercial failures, was already unsucessfully nominated a short time ago, but under a different title. This was not noted in the nomination. Please read the opposing arguments here, and reconsider your vote, because it is important that the opinions of previous voters be considered. Thanks! AdamBiswanger1 23:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M dashes

Naw, I ain't that smart! I know *vaguely* they're called something like that, but I wasn't thinking of it at the time, hehe. Just too lazy to write "them" in full. But now I ought to be able to remember what they're called.... Cheers! Hayford Peirce 01:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Santorum AfD

I agree the discussion has morphed, but I don't yet have enough WP experience to know where the discussion should be held if not on the AfD page. My vote has already changed to Keep on that page.

I think it's a notable political act, but not a successful coinage. It should be in WP somewhere. The article as it stands seems intended as an attack on Rick Santorum; the prominent formatting of the definition is presumably done to maximize the impact of the statement, and so is a political statement. The article should describe the political act only. I'd be OK with it staying in Savage Love but the comments on the AfD have convinced me that it is a notable enough act to deserve its own page. I don't feel strongly either way on this.

The page moves seem likely to have been done just in order to ensure that a search term of "santorum" leads straight to this page, again for political reasons. That doesn't make the moves wrong, though. WP:DAB seems pretty clear to me; I think most users searching for "santorum" would expect to find the senator, and I'd suggest they be directed to that page. A dab link can take them to the dab page which would lead them to the term. That's the solution I'd propose. Google counts: "Rick Santorum" -fecal = 3.52M, "Rick Santorum" +fecal = 30K.

If you can tell me the right forum to post the above, I'll post there; the AfD seems wrong, since my vote is keep. Should we be requesting an admin to terminate the discussion and repost the content to the talk page? Or is that something I can do, as nominator? The latter seems wrong to me, since I have no special role in the discussion beyond having initiated it. Is there policy that applies here? Mike Christie 23:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on all points. I don't know what to suggest about the right forum. What's really going to happen is that the closing admin will close it as "keep" or as "no consensus," the article will be kept, and there will likely develop some kind of edit war with both sides claiming support from the AfD. Shrug. The main thing is to develop as clear a consensus as possible in the AfD, make sure that the AfD discussion gets copied to the Talk page if the admin doesn't do it, and take it from there. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'm going to post the Google counts; that at least seems useful info for the closing admin's decision. Mike Christie 23:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback requested

At Wikipedia_talk:List_guideline#Criteria Thanks! --Anthony Krupp 00:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The proper study of encyclopaedists

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belhaven Hill School

I'm trying to shift the focus of the schools debates from the various "stuck record" arguments that have bogged editors down for so long onto the finding, reading, citing, and evaluation of sources, using the new WP:SCHOOL criteria to do this in the same way that the WP:CORP did this for companies and products. As an editor who has done that very thing in the past, please consider helping by setting an example. Please independently consider the topic at hand from the perspective of locating and evaluating (in terms of its provenance and depth) the source material on the subject, and see what conclusions you come to. Uncle G 10:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I respect what you've been doing in this and other AfD's. I'm not quite sure what to do here. So I want to chat a bit before expressing any opinion in the AfD.

First, I simply don't agree with the proposed WP:SCHOOL. I think it sets the bar much too low because of the combination of requiring the school to pass any single criterion together with some very loose criteria. As I read the proposal, a school that gets "regular coverage in local media (such as complete stories about a school's athletic program)" meets the criterion. Given even a modicum of creative interpretation I don't see how any school could fail to meet WP:SCHOOL.

Second, I don't believe the article in its present form actually does meet WP:SCHOOL, although you apparently think it does. I've seen in the past arguments that a particular school is "notable" because some routine government evaluation gives it a high rating; it usually turns out that a goodly percentage of schools get the rating and that it just means "ordinary good school."

I really wish you had asked me to "set a good example" on an article that happened to be about a patently notable primary school that patently had had nontrivial published sources... as opposed to an arguably notable primary school that arguably has sources that arguably might just barely satisfy the easiest-to-meet criterion of a very easy-to-meet proposal

But notable primary schools are few and far between... and frankly, they're not controversial, as mainstream Wikipedians would not be likely to nominate them for deletion.

Holding off on expressing an opinion in the discussion until I hear from you... Dpbsmith (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Santorum

Hi Dpbsmith. Please see my reply to you at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Santorum. Your Google SafeSearch filter was turned on. I've included instructions for seeing the unfiltered results over at the AfD page. — Coelacan | talk 23:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources

I've just read some stuff at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, and I was most impressed with the range of citations you provided covering the topic of "the sky is blue". Do you have that permanently stored somewhere as an example? I think many people would find it very instructive. Carcharoth 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another ______ Ivies

Newsweek decided to generate a list of New Ivies, which, lo and behold, now has an article up. As this is your area of interest, if not expertise, I was wondering what you thought about the merit of this list having an article. JDoorj a m Talk 02:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of images

Hi, again! Could I get your opinion of whether, say, an old Time Magazine cover of Joan Baez is permitted in the Joan Baez article or not? I put one in several months ago. Now an officious busybody is going around removing images from various articles. I went to his user-talk page and found the following dialogue between him (her?) and another upset editor. I'll paste it in below. And I'd greatly appreciate your thoughts on this subject -- it seems to me that there are *gazillions* of mag. covers being used and no one else seems to object as long as the pertinent copyright info is given, along with the appropriate fair-use tag.... Many thanks! Hayford Peirce 21:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

xxRemoval of imagesxx Please stop removing images from articles, as you did with Jenny Lynn, Raye Hollitt, Guy Lafleur, and others. Using images of book and magazine covers is acceptable under WP:Fair use. fbb_fan 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:Fair use and the policy described in the copyright tag for those images more carefully. As my edit summaries accurately quoted, "It is not acceptable to use images with this tag in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used directly in connection with the publication of this image." In each case you cited, the article use did not conform to this requirement. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 19:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:FU and note that it is in fact a guideline, not a policy. This is clearly stated at the top of the page. fbb_fan 01:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:FU more carefully. The template you mention refers only to sections 1-4 of the page. Sections 5-8 are formal Wikipedia policy. They are labelled as formal policy by the template preceding section 5. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 16:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

...and I believe the section you are citing as the reason for removing images is not in the section marked as "policy".

Incidentally, since you seem to be quite a stickler for policy and such, please note the following from WP:SIG: Signatures that obscure your account name to the casual reader may be seen as disruptive. fbb_fan 23:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Ivies AFD

New Ivies has been recommended for deletion, click here —ExplorerCDT 06:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saw your Slashdot question

Re. the user who said he was immediately banned- he chose the username Obvioustroll, which is apparently one of his normal online usernames, but per our guidelines, is blockworthy. Ral315 (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toby Tortoise Returns

Apologies, I thought it was black & white. Most film entries from this time on Wikipedia state if they were done in Technicolour, hence why I added the B&W category. - User:Lugnuts

[edit] Public ivies

I agree that facts should be cited. However, articles can clog with references and when something does not seem controversial, I question why a cite is necessary. Rkevins82 15:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Because the verifiability policy, one of Wikipedia's core policies, says so.

The words of the policy are "Articles should cite these sources whenever possible." Whenever possible; not, "when the material does not seem controversial." In this case, supplying a citation was not only possible but easy.

The reason behind the policy is that it is the only way for a reader to judge the reliability of facts in Wikipedia. The alternative would be limit Wikipedia editors to people with known identities and credentials. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly - sometimes when I tag things people give page-long explanations of why something is true when all they needed to do was just put the cite in :). RN 16:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(Which, for the record, I did). Dpbsmith (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of sock puppetry on the Center for Science in the Public Interest page

Allegations of sock puppetry have been made against some of the accounts that have edited the Center for Science in the Public Interest page. I have instigated the wiki process for handling such allegations. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin. As someone who has contributed to the CSPI page, please add your views to the Comments section. You have up to 10 days to make comments on the allegation. Nunquam Dormio 19:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination: Pete Holly

An article that you have been involved in editing, Pete Holly, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Holly (3rd nomination). Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

-- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] guess who came back from the dead

some things just won't go away... for example: New Ivies Cornell Rockey 15:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Took a Stab at It

Per your suggestion, I added a short "Other Ivies" entry under Ivy League. I welcome your thoughts. -Joshua

[edit] Flagship Campus reference for UCI

The deleted reference to UCI aspiring to become a flagship campus was replaced, as it is a stated goal of the Strategy for Academic Development, UCI's long-range development plan. This statement is part of the charge to planning committee members and may also be found throughout the PDF report. These websites have been cited.

While the wording of the deleted reference might require slight revision, UCB and UCLA are generally known as flagship UC campuses (which UCI and UCSD have explicitly stated they aspire to become). Therefore, the context in which the term "flagship" is used in the Strategy for Academic Development, while having the formal origin which you cited, also can have an informal application among those unfamiliar with California higher education history. It also has relevance to the discussion of UCI's future growth, since its objective is to develop resources commensurate to UCB and UCLA. Fueltheburn 20:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I reworded it, putting "flagship campus" in quotation marks, because I still believe this is not the standard usage of the term, and adding the specific reference you give above. As for Berkeley and UCLA: do you have a reference for UCLA being called "a flagship campus?" Dpbsmith (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Units in scientific articles.

Re Lux: See WP:MOS#Scientific style. "For units of measure, use SI units as the main units in science articles, unless there are compelling historical or pragmatic reasons not to do so"--Srleffler 14:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but let's give both units. Just for the record, I've been "thinking metric" since the 1960s... but I live, alas, in a U. S. Customary world. I'll make the change if you haven't already. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, you've done it. Don't worry, I'm not going to revert-war. It will be interesting to see whether Bobblewik or someone else starts fussing around changing it to 30.48 cm or 0.984 feet or changing "candle" to "candela..." Dpbsmith (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Holmes (actor)

Hi, could you take a look at the above, sigh John Holmes (actor). Some dingbat is cutting out large sections of it because he objects to the content, which might shock a 7-year-old. I've reverted a couple of times but I'm too tired to get into a revert war with a crazy. Could you maybe revert to the original and then put a block, or semi-block, on it? Or, of course, whatever other appropriate action you deem fitting. I remember a couple of years ago on the Discussion page of, I think, "Pornography" there were endless millions of words written about Wiki censorship, or lack of it, viewership, children, etc. etc. Eventually the forces of censorship were outgunned, but I don't want to go through all of this again on the Holmes page, if possible. Many thanks.... Hayford Peirce 17:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I won't try to edit this while I'm at work, and I may not have time tonight, but I'll take a look. The longstanding policy you're probably looking for is Wikipedia is not censored. The exact wording of that section has changed from time to time but the gist never has, and there's strong consensus for it. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Good enough. I'll try reverting it one more time, with a Wikipedia is not censored note on the Discussion page and one on the other guy's page. While I was writing my last note to you, he posted a message on my page calling me and Jimmie Wales Porn Peddlers, hehe.... Hayford Peirce 19:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  - Yes, I looked at your talk page to see whether he'd tried to engage you in any discussion... and I left a note on his talk page pointing out that his remark on your talk page was verging on a personal attack. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    - I just saw it about 5 seconds ago -- many thanks! Hayford Peirce 19:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Assuming I'm a guy is like assuming censorship is a bad thing!

I don't think I assumed that. It was Hayford Peirce that referred to you as a "guy." Dpbsmith (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And what about Mr. Peirce's reference to me being a "dingbat" and "crazy"(?), doesn't that qualify as a personal attack?

Yes, you're right. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have pre-teen and teenagers who get their sources from school. Apparently Mr. Holmes has become a topic with the pictures from the links. Makes teens more curious than they already are and Jimbo Wales and Mr. Peirce are contributors as well as yourself if you adopt the same view. I do have filters, they don't detect the content from Wikipedia or have a fail safe system. Personally, I am getting a committee together here at the school and ban Wikipedia from the schools because of the content and inform parents. Hopefully this will be a grass roots movement and get Wikipedia out of all decent places. If Jimbo, Peirce and yourself endorse these links and behavior on Wikipedia, someone from a moral background has to intercede. Try showing those links to your local sheriff's kids, your immediate families kids and see if your explanation to me works!2HOT2 21:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)2

I'm giving you accurate advice about what Wikipedia's policies actually are. Wikipedia does contain many articles on sexual practices, porn stars, etc. It is only a small portion of the total content but it is definitely there. I'm not sure which links bother you but I don't see the difference between a couple of them I checked and the ones that I find from a Google search on "John Holmes."

It is not a bad idea to let people know that Wikipedia does contain content that many think is inappropriate for children, if they are not already aware of this.

I believe you're overreacting but what you do with regard to your local schools is your business. I ask that you be accurate when talking to parents. It is perfectly fair to say that Wikipedia does contain a lot of material that some people find offensive, but I hope you will not suggest that it is an encyclopedia of porn or anything like that. People that want to find indecent material have much better places to go on the Internet than Wikipedia.

Please be aware of the three revert rule. If you and Hayford Peirce continue to revert each other without first discussing the issue on the talk page and trying to get consensus, I am prepared to impose a short block on editing on both of you. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:4790 a philip randolph.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:4790 a philip randolph.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

Just so you know, even though you had marked this as GFDL, under US copyright law, statues and other 3D artworks are copyrighted by the artist and photos of them are considered derivative works. Thus, I applied the {{Statue}} fair use tag on your photo, and it can only be used in an article about the artist or about the statue itself. Please see Commons:Derivative works for more information. Regards, howch e ng {chat} 03:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know that. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Madison, Wisconsin

Hi! I was checking the Famous Madisonians list and verifying from the text of the pages of the individuals named on the list, and I removed a couple that were, as you point out, "dubious".

However, I hope you don't think that I was adding names willy nilly. All of the names you indicated require a citation were already on the list and I was verifying by the text of the individual pages of those concerned if they indeed qualified to be included on the list and if they qualified to have a category (i.e. Category:People from Madison, Wisconsin) to that effect.

Anyway, you can count on me to help. I just wanted to make sure there were no misunderstandings. HOT L Baltimore 14:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. You were removing dubious entries. That drew my attention to the fact that nobody had bothered to supply citations for any of the other names. Most likely 95% of them are completely valid, but without citations there's no easy way for a reader to know. "citation needed" means "citation needed," not "dubious." Entries that are dubious should be removed (as you did), not tagged. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It will take a lot of work to clean this up and it will proceed slowly. I'll do some of it myself, but of course under WP:V the burden is properly on the editors inserting the name to provide the reference. As you check names, be sure to note whether the linked articles actually give a reference for the individual's connection with Madison. From past experience I expect that maybe 20% of them will. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sig

You left it off on your last Don Paul Afd comment. Morton devonshire 22:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing souces congrats

I just came across yet another one of your excellent, sensible comments on the subject of citation, and references, and so on, and I just wanted to say thanks. The (two) citations to "the sky is blue" were much fun, and informative, too. Keep up the fight. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Two citations? The one I saw had much more than that! :-) I'm talking about this one, which I've mentioned here. Hope you don't mind me spreading that example to a wider audience. Carcharoth 00:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. And one of these days I actually do intend to add some of these to the "sky" article... Dpbsmith (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

P. S. Stephen Crane's short story The Open Boat opens: "None of them knew the color of the sky." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pforzheimer House

I am quite busy this week, and I do not feel strongly enough about the issue to become engaged in it, but I nevertheless am appreciative that you thought to bring the matter to my attention because I might be interested. Always nice to hear from good editors that I've worked on articles with in the past. Happy editing! —Lowellian (reply) 05:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parting note

For one reason and another, I've decided lately to pack up my Wikipedian tools and go ply my wordsmithing skills elsewhere. It's been a great ride — I got five of my own pet projects on the Main Page, after all! — but gravity is setting in, potential energy has changed for kinetic and then degraded into heat, and everything that sounds like fun seems to involve more than a little capital-R Original Research. A few things remain to be wrapped up, but all the places where I figured "I'm the only one who can do this" are basically as good as I can leave them.

It doesn't look like I'll be able to revamp Massachusetts Institute of Technology into a sterling piece of encyclopedic scholarship, but such are the vicissitudes of academic life.

Be seeing you. Anville 18:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Rogers

No more varied than Wendy's, Arbee's, Boston Market,

Um, yes...except that Arbee's and Boston Market didn't exist during Roy Rogers' heyday, and Wendys was the first of new fast food restaurants offering more than just burgers and fries. Roys was pretty unusual back in the day, it was literally Macdonalds, Arbys, and KFC combined. You would have been hard pressed to find other "fast food" restuarants in the 80s offering so many different types of food. 209.92.136.131 18:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Arby's certainly existed (I misspelled it). Our article says, 1964. Also Sambo's (1957), Denny's (founded 1953 but not clear from the article when they started to offer a wide menu, and many others that blurred the distinctions between what is now called "casual dining," fast food, and traditional "short-order." McDonald's and Burger King were unusually specialized. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. :)

When you said "Arbee's", I actually thought you were talking about a different chain altogether. 70.20.212.73 12:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I was probably mixing up Arby's and Hardee's. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Annie" material in John Holmes article

Hi. I dunno if you follow that page (John Holmes (actor), but over the last couple of months (at least) dubious info keeps being put into it. Various people revert it, including me a few minutes ago. I then got the following message on my Discussion page:

The person who keeps editing the John Holmes page to include unverified information about a supposed biography that backs up the unsubstantiated "Annie" story, is a woman who is obsessed with the murders. She has been peddling that story all over the internet but it was thoroughly debunked by a writer and his webmaster. The story is here. There is no biography, there is no truth to the story, and she has a long history of inserting herself into high profile murder cases. Someone needs to get an admin involved, but because I'm not a regular contributor to Wikipedia I'm hoping you'll do it. She will continue creating new identities and reposting the information without end if her prior behavior on other web sites is any indication. Thanks.

All of the documentation has been collected here. I can provide her current IP address, as of a few days ago, if that helps.

I dunno if this is anything that you can do something about or not. The story is easy enough to revert, but it's annoying that it keeps cropping up. Best, Hayford Peirce 00:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

- Here's the corrected site for the second citation: http://www.womenwhokill.com/ Hayford Peirce 01:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The story is verifiable as you have just pointed out. Verifiable means documented from other sources, not that it is undisputed and I have mentioned that the story has been disputed by some. Wiki does not stated that your edits must be "without a doubt" 100% agreed- upon-by-all-as-true. If this were so no competing views on any subject would be allowed and competing views should be heard in any unsolved case such as this one. If this is the way things are to be, nothing on the Kennedy assasination/conspiracy should be published here because few can agree on what really happened. People deserve to hear all sides of any issue as long as the information meets Wiki guidelines, which this does/will, and I will add the requested information (dates, page numbers) as soon as I look them up again. If Hayford doesn't like it, I suggest don't read it but don't try to stop others from doing so.

Thank you for the information Dpb, and I will remember to do that from now on. I did not know we had to be that specific as the other information in the article(s) does not have cites, but no biggie, I will add them and edit as necessary to fit the cites. Dbp-Question, how do you cite websites properly on Wiki? WWW adress and date? Thank you. JM

The story is not verifiable. The fact that the story is FALSE is verifiable at the links above. There is absolutely nothing verifying the story is TRUE. MeAgain2006 02:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You did not read what I said. No one said the story itself is beyond dispute. Meaning the content of the story. The fact that the story is out there is what is verifiable and the fact that it has appeared in more than one place is verifiable. That is what is required to put it on Wiki with the related cites and sources. We readers can make up their own minds what to believe, we don't need you running interference for us. JM

Anyone can tell a story anywhere, as you well know since you keep telling it. That doesn't create verification. There is nothing verifying the veracity of the original story, and the story only exists where it has been debunked and proven to be false. The original story was a false claim made by a woman who is obsessed with John Holmes and the Wonderland Murders, as you also well know because you look at her in the mirror every morning. You keep adding "It is widely believed" when it is not. You can't cite one person who believes that baloney except you and your sock puppets. Get over it. No one is leaving that story up when they know it isn't true. Get a new hobby. MeAgain2006 03:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to be very clear about this, as I am not in agreement with either of you.

First, yes, User:JMoyer is correct that if indeed "the story is out there," it can and should be in the article if certain conditions are met. First, if contradictory information is also out there and published by a reliable source, then the neutrality policy requires that both points of view be represented in some reasonably balanced way. We can and do leave material up that we "know isn't true;" see Hollow earth, for example, and many articles about fringe science, pseudoscience, and occult topics.

But, second, in order for this material to be in the article it has to meet the verifiability policy and the citation and reliable source guidelines. And "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," meaning that if User:JMoyer wants this material in the article, and expects uninvolved editors like myself to support its being there, he or she needs to be very punctilious about meeting that policy and guidelines.

Not having looked into it myself, but generally trusting Hayford Peirce's judgement, I think I should say frankly that I strongly doubt that this material has been published by reliable source. But as I say I haven't looked into it. Let's pretend that The New York Times had an article entitled "Internet Breeds Conspiracy Theories" and it happened to mention this and called it nonsense. If someone were to add an accurate description of what the Times said, and gave the date and page number at which the story appeared, that would be a well-sourced, verifiable source for "the story being out there." And the appropriate response by a disbeliever would be. not to remove it, but to add an equally well-sourced statement of the reasons why the story is nonsense.

User:JMoyer, in answer to your question as to how to cite a web page, there are varying ways to do this, but one that is simple and is perfectly adequate is to type the url within a single pair of square brackets, like this: [http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/johnholmes.html] which shows up like this: [1]. It's important that the page be the specific web page that supports the specific fact. Thus, "John Holmes is also the name of a poet[http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/johnholmes.html] is fine, because that page talks about the poet John Holmes. "John Holmes is also the name of a poet [www.uua.org]" is not, because even though the UUA website contains material about the poet John Holmes, just giving the home page of the UUA website does not let you find that material.

There are fancier ways to cite things, such as the template {{cite web}}, but there's no need to worry about them. If the material is properly cited with a reference to a reliable source, you can leave it to other Wikipedians to take care of technical and style details.

The important thing is that you cannot just add a sentence like "It is unknown if he had any further contact with Annie, though it is verified he made several trips to the east coast after his release from prison and before his death." Immediately following that sentence needs to be a citation that is fairly easily checked to a source that says "he made several trips" etc.

Be aware that the "reliable source" guideline is very important, too. Basically, a reliable source cannot be anything like a web forum or a blog or a personal website where anyone can just say anything they like. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

P. S. Putting a reference directly into the text immediately after the fact it's supporting is sometimes called an "inline reference." User:JMoyer, that is what you need to start doing. And it was improper of you to label an edit with the edit comment "Several citations/sources added, not original research" when the edit does not contain an inline source citation. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. The source of the original story is not reliable or verifiable, which is what I meant although I probably didn't word what I wrote clearly enough to explain that. The biography she cites simply doesn't exist. The story was originally told on a message board by an individual, and it was debunked on a blog. The documentation supporting the debunking, which includes information about her history, server logs documenting her internet activity and the numerous identities created in her attempt to spread the story, and information about a false obituary she filed in a real newspaper in order to get the details into print (which was retracted - couldn't get clippings, but there is someone at the paper who can verify that the obituary was fake) are on the 2nd web site. The one "credible" source verifies this person's history of confessing to high profile murders, Court TV's Crime Library, but it was unrelated to the yarn she is spinning about John Holmes. I think you should read that if you can make the time so you might understand the seriousness of the situation. MeAgain2006 18:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have just removed the identical material that JM inserted a few days ago into the Wonderland Murders article. Hayford Peirce 19:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for you assistance Dpbsmith. I answered your remarks on the Holmes discussion. Tried my best to keep it impersonal MeAgain2006 23:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Dpbsmith, I have finished my edits for content and added the proper citations. The problem now is that I cannot use any of the "debunking" information as it appears on person blogs, public messages boards, and websites. In light of the strident tone of the other messages, and in trying to be impartial and fair, I would like to include it but cannot and keep within the guidelines as far as I can see. MeAgain2006 mentioned 2 sites but both are someone's personal blog and website. The second one had 1 article from a newspaper I thought I could use but it does not link the two murder stories, nor the two women in those stories. I am extremely hesitant about referencing that site anyway as it appears to be a carefully constructed log of one person stalking and harassing another, with nothing more than suspicion and one persons word that any of the ISP addresses listed or message board identities belonging to whom they purport them to belong to. I would like to add the information I have back in with the edits I have completed but fully anticipate being reversed again if I do not include the contrary information. Any advice you can give on this matter would be appreciated. JM

I suggest you put a draft of your material into the Talk page of the John Holmes article and let people discuss it. You are not necessarily required to include the debunking material yourself. That's really the job of the people who think it's important to include it. The important thing is that the material you wish to include be well sourced and well cited. If you want to try to put in some of MeAgain2006's side of the story but don't have good citations, go ahead and put them in and include the {{citation needed}} tag yourself.

Go to Talk:John Holmes (actor), press the "+" tab, type in a subject line like "Proposed addition," and include your material. You should expect vigorous criticism, and people will probably want to reduce the length and amount of detail, and some people may want to check the citations or discuss whether they meet "reliable source" guidelines. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split infinitive

Split infinitive is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 16:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The science-fiction hyphen thing again

Hi, some other people who had nothing to do with the dispute of several weeks ago about "science-fiction writers write science fiction" have now stepped into the article on Science Fiction and are insisting on taking out the correct hyphens. I, and an English teacher, have tried to get them to read the article on compound modifiers but apparently to no avail: they prefer to have their own way rather than being correct. Since I feel that everything in Wiki ought to be *correct* instead of merely being subject to a vote, I would appreciate it if you could look this situation over and do whatever you can to restore the correct order of things. Many thanks! Hayford Peirce 20:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, nuhn-huh, no way, ain't gunna.

Now, personally, I hyphenate the word. But, personally, I use a lot of punctuation that is going by the wayside. I put the apostrophe in Hallowe'en where my fourth grade teacher said it was supposed to go, I put a hyphen between the o's in co-operate (and for a nickel I'd put a dieresis over the second o), and I insist on using a driver's license, not a driver license.

But I've seen "science-fiction" both ways, and frankly I think when I was a kid the little labels with the picture of a rocket ship that the library used to put on the spines of the books said "science fiction," not "science-fiction." And I notice that a dictionary I know and like gives science fiction with a space as the entry word and science-fiction with a hyphen as—

yikes, oh, wait, this is IMHO totally bizarre. They seem to be saying that science-fiction is the adjectival form and science fiction is the noun. Maybe that's what you're referring to above.

Well, I don't think it's important, so there.

For what it's worth, when I was in high school in the 1960s, my senior English paper was entitled "Upward Ho! A defence of science-fiction." Note the c in defence. For some reason I liked to use British spellings. My teachers heaved a sigh and said as long as it was deliberate and I was consistent in using it, they wouldn't red-pencil it.

It opens: "Science-fiction has suffered almost every ignominy except that of being published by Grosset and Dunlap. It is read by a small group of avid fans, and almost completely ignored by everyone else. There is but a single work on the genre written by an 'outsider;' it was published in 1960."

So if the dictionary is correct about the noun-adjective thing, I was hyphenating it when I shouldn't have, so I'm not going to pick on people who are failing to hyphenated it when they should.

Besides, as everyone knows, the correct term is scientifiction.

Seriously, this is like the British-versus-American usage thing. Just let it go. If it's wrong, it's a common enough error not to matter. The last thing Wikipedia is good at is deciding matters of usage and style. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hehe. Sorry, I think I got you mixed up with User:23skidoo about this hyphen business. We had a go around with it a couple of weeks ago with some other people. To sum it up briefly: if you believe that the compound modifier business is correct, then one writes: "Science-fiction writers write science fiction." One with a hyphen, one without. But, God knows, I've made plenty of grammatical errors in my own checkered past. Like you, at least I was generally consistent with them. I guess the things that bug me the most at the moment are "science-fiction whatever" and incorrectly using "which" instead of "that" in certain cases. I could devote the rest of my life to tracking down these things in Wiki but I'm not going to bother.... Cheers! Hayford Peirce 18:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Science" citation "guidelines"

A continuation of the old "when not to cite" discussion from WP:CITE is at Wikipedia talk:Scientific citation guidelines, listed as a "science" "guideline" now at WP:CITE, without consensus from science areas other than math/physics. Sandy (Talk) 17:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Software development

Could you take a look at this article, and related discussion on the talk page, if you have some time. I'd appreciate getting another perspective. Thanks. --Allan McInnes (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1554 sterlingmarker.jpg

Please review and correct the licensing tag on the image. There is a copyright symbols listed, which contradicts the license tag. Cheers! Royalbroil^{Talk Contrib} 05:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I see that I need more education on the differences between GDFL and Creative Commons. Most people are using Creative Commons in my experience. I read the licensing for GDFL & CC, but I don't see significant differences. You're right about listing the copyright under GDFL. Cheers! Royalbroil^{Talk Contrib} 15:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Research in two dimensions

Hello again: It occurs to me you may well know about this item. Many years ago (probably 30 or so) I remember reading (I think in Newsweek) about a Canadian who had devoted much of his career (maybe at the Univ. of Western Ontario) to research in two-dimensional things; he had invented a whole world of two dimensions and was always trying to figure out how living things in such a place could do A, B, or C. Somewhat whimsical, yes, but I also remember that his research had proven useful in some areas of science and engineering. This is obviously related to Abbott's "Flatland" but goes much further. Does this ring any bells with you? Or do you have any ideas on how I could learn more about it? Ever since I read the article I have had a solution for one problem he had encountered but have no idea how to proceed, or even if he is still doing this, still teaching somewhere, still alive, etc. Merci! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 15:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds cool but I'm afraid it is utterly unfamiliar to me. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/p/b/User_talk%7EDpbsmith_07c6.html"

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.