User talk:AlphaEta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will respond to questions and comments on your talk page. Half-conversations may be transposed here to maintain a coherent record.
All of my edits are done in good faith. If I've made a mistake, please let me know and I'll do my best to fix it.
If you choose to be a dick, expect to be treated in kind!
Archive
Archives
Newsletters
2007
2008


Contents

[edit] Dawoodi Bohras

First and foremost, that the person is inserting the edit in question into the lead when it already has its own section (and has done so repeatedly despite warnings) smacks of silly/petty vandalism; you really don't have any reason to continue assuming good faith.
As for the section itself, it is wholly unsourced and highly dubious. There is another issue along with this, and let me be a bit frank here. I'm not sure if you hang around a lot of Muslim people or not, but obviously, Muslims are a pretty diverse lot. I have a lot of friends originally of South Asian descent. Very nice people, very good people, but when it comes to Islam - and this goes for the Shi'a as well as the Sunni from that area - is there is still a lot of "mystical" influence from pre-Islamic religions. You hear a lot of stories about their imams and sheikhs that are blatantly made up that people typically hear from their grandparents as children, just stories they grow up with about Sheikh So-and-so memorizing the entire Qur'an in a month, learning to speak Arabic without a teacher, or other far-fetched sounding miracles. Obviously you find it among all peoples of the world but there are more running jokes within the Muslim community about South Asian brothers and sisters regarding this than anything. Honestly, check any of the other Islamic movements from that geographic area here on Wikipedia and you'll find similarly hard-to-swallow (and unsourced) stories as well.
My advice, bring up the issue of citations on the talk page. Wait a week or two, and if nobody offers any i'd just remove the section from the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for finding that image of the Robert E. Lee.--Bedford 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rv

You shouldn't have undone my edits before dicussing them first. In the Ali article, Shi'as do not consider Uthman to be ALi's predecessor or Muawiya his successor. In Taqlid, the word is almost always associated with Shi'as not Sunnis. In al-Abbas ibn Ali you acted very inappropriately by reverting my edit which was adding a very famous nickname. And in Day of Ashura, all Muslims believe that Moses fasted this day, and Shi'as have ever killed Sunnis especially on Ashura. So be decent if you will and do not revert my edits. 77.42.129.119 (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edits were a clear violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Regards, AlphaEta 00:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

Thanks for fixing the Pope's image! I added it and tried to get the words on the bottom but I was doing something wrong. Thanks for helping! NancyHeise (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua Lederberg at WP:COIN

Hello AlphaEta. I notice you have been one of the editors working on the Joshua Lederberg article. There is an ongoing discussion at the COI noticeboard about the propriety of recent edits to that article by Shadow600. You are welcome to join that discussion and give your own opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to female genital cutting

Thank you for helping edit female genital cutting. Are you aware that the article now presents a set of definitions for the WHO's categorization that is based on two different revisions of that categorization? Also, there is a dispute regarding how we should approach editing this article given that its language of discussion is largely defined by the WHO, and the WHO in 2008 changed its definition of "female genital cutting" as well as its categorization. This seems to recast the entire topic and render all previous sources commenting on the WHO-types useless and misleading, posing a huge problem for this article. At the very least, we need to be consistent with one version; perhaps we should separate coverage of the topic according to which definitions were being used in the scholarly sources at the time such sources were presented. I invite you to comment on the question of integrating this radical change to the language of female genital cutting, as well as the dispute, which may be found here. Thanks. Blackworm (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping format the references at Circumcision, AlphaEta. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy note

Hi AlphaEta. I just wanted to let you know that I mentioned my understanding of one of your edit summaries in this edit. If I've misunderstood your intent, I'd be grateful if you could let me know. Many thanks, Jakew (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for using my suggestion, and for attributing me in the edit summary. So much nicer than edit warring. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citiations

Did I forget to put it somewhere? Sorry if I did, could you tell me what page? thanks. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

Hey Red, I was looking at this edit in particular. There is a discrepancy between the number of U.S. wounded in the infobox and the text. Of course, there were problems with the number killed before you corrected it. It's just difficult to figure out which casualty figures are correct without more information. Thanks, AlphaEta 01:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed that up. Was there anything else? (Red4tribe (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

Hello again, sorry to keep bothering you. Do you know how reliable the source is? The Combined Arms Research Library lists the U.S. casualty count at 126 wounded (scroll down and see Figure 4 in this document, which is based on the War Department records). Let me know what you think. Thanks, AlphaEta 02:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is quite reliable, a very detailed site, and it is usually right on the dot. I should probably change it back though, not a big difference in the casulty numbers but I would take Combined Arms Research Library to be more official than the other site. (Red4tribe (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] WP:3RR

Good call on the spam in 8 Man. However, I should point out that you did violate the 3RR in the process. Please be careful. Toddst1 (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly 3RR warning. I thought reversions of spam were excepted from the 3RR? Thanks for the clarification. Kindest regards,AlphaEta 02:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
And you knew that removing spamming is an exception, and I forgot that. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tren

Anytime :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tren, again

Thanks for adding an article on tren. Overdue and a great start. I added some information and edited some of yours, so I hope that you are okay with that. All organonitrogen compounds when combusted release CO and NOx, so we usually do not mention this aspect (or we'd need to expand the warnings on hundreds of articles on organoN species). Also, tren is colourless. Samples might appear yellow or brown, but tren is colourless. I'd appreciate it if you'd look over the coordination chem part that I added for clarity and typo's. It would be nice to say something more about ATR, but I dont think that tren is really used as much as the permethylated amines.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Smokefoot, Your edits are great! I'm not trained as a chemist, so I'll defer to your expertise. Thanks for the help. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 00:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dinh et al.

Hi AlphaEta. Congratulations on substituting the proper reference for Dinh et al. so quickly! I'm still trying to obtain a copy - do you by any chance have a pdf that you could share? Thanks, Jakew (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I was hoping there might have been an OR or p value (or at least something to demonstrate significance). Oh well, the quote is verifiable, if unsatisfying. Thanks for your help. Regards, Jakew (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, that makes a lot more sense to me now. Regards, Jakew (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corpses in New Orleans floodwaters

Hi. That human as well as animal corpses were in the post-Katrina floodwaters unfortunately is no "exageration". I wish it were. Some photos from national media ...and the media never got to many of the worse damaged parts of the disaster area. May we never see our citizens left like this again. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Infrogmation. Sorry if it seemed like I was understating the toll of Katrina. I, like you, am painfully aware of the storm's consequences. My edit summary (in which is used the term "exaggeration") was in reference to the concern that human corpses were a source of pollution in Lake Pontchartrain (principally as a biohazard). This same misconception was common following the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004. Further, the citation does not support the claim. Thanks for the note. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 02:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can you look again?

Hi AlphaEta, re this revert, while the edit may have looked like vandalism, there was actually a reasonable (if ineloquent) explanation on the talk page. Can you look again? Jakew (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Champaign, Illinois

Hello AlphaEta. I saw you lived in Champaign, and were part of the Illinois Project. I also am, and am assisting another user in work with historic places in the state. I still have to go through what I have, but I need some more pictures of historic places in Champaign County. Living up in the northern part of the state, it is hard to get down there. If I get you a list, would you be able to take a camera out and take pictures of what is missing? Then simply upload them to the WikiCommons? We wouldn't need fancy pictures, just a couple pictures of each building. Let me know, and if you need a map created. Thanks for your time.--Kranar drogin (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area
Last: 3/16/2008
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Black Boy Cover.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Black Boy Cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)