User talk:Professor marginalia/Archives

[edit] Ryan Sheckler

No, what happened is that you made the correction as I was changing the vandalism edit. So when I saved it it went back to the vandalized version. It was accidental. You saw the error before me. Fighting for Justice 03:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've had this article on my watchlist for a long time now. It is constantly vandalized by pre-teens. Fighting for Justice 03:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Professor marginalia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Lumos3 18:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome..Do I sign like this? Professor marginalia 01:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism on Prohibition in the United States

Hi there. I noticed you removed large chunks from this article on the grounds that it was plagiarised from other sources. Can you provide any evidence? The bulk of what you removed claiming it was taken from a blog, by checking back through the dates you can find that it appeared on Wikipedia long before appearing on the blog claimed to be written by someone else. As for the other bits, can you please provide evidence to support the claims of plagiarism? Ben W Bell talk 12:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. See Talk:Prohibition in the United StatesProfessor marginalia 17:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I just seem to have latched onto the bit that was actually okay. You've done great work, keep it up it's great to have you along. Ben W Bell talk 23:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Johann Hari

Hi. This is a quick note about the editing of the Johann hari page, which I know you've taken an interest in.

As reading though the page's history will show, the user Felix-Felix has described Hari as "a self-publicising careerist, and an especially unpleasant one at that", accused him of being in favour of "the destruction of Untermenschen" (when in fact he is an Amnesty International award-winner), inserted fictitious claims he went to the most exclusive public school in Britain when in fact his father is a bus driver, and, most crucially, inserted poorly sourced claims that he "fabricated" a story he wrote about.

This is a pattern of falsehood and animus that really worries me. This user is now insisting on his right to reinsert the claims that hari farbricated a story, sourcing them to a magazine that wiki administrators have already said is not reliable. What can I do in this situation? - DavidR81.129.156.202 12:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the above. Dave r has been smearing me with these accusations, one of which is false, the other taken out of context, and utterly irrelevant. He has also posted this defamatory message on multiple other user talk pages; [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. This is starting to feel a little like harassment, and not in a good way. FelixFelix ^talk 14:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daikon names

Howdy. This is kind of obscure, but you made an edit in January to daikon, linked here. It added a number of foreign synonyms of Daikon, with an "Encyclopedia of Asian Food" as the source, to an existing sentence. I am wondering if the source confirmed the other, exisiting names, or was intended to apply only to the newly-added second half of the sentence. (That gets confusing in Wikipedia, when a footnote supports only part of a given sentence). I'm skeptical about the earlier-added name "winter radish" as a synonym, but don't feel like hunting down the cited book to challenge it. Best regards. -Agyle 06:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV

There is no problem really, just the original author wanted it to be kept even though it is about a Non notable person. He is the one making all the socks. It should be closed to stop all the nonsense. Make sense? Reply on my talk page. Thanks- Rjd0060 18:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It sure is a waste of time. I believe (but I am not 100% certain) that the previous resurrections were just recreations. I know that one user (maybe admin, maybe not) suggested SALTing it on the Deletion Review, but as of this list, it has not been SALTED. It should be IMO. I am going to add a note on the Administrators Noticeboard to see where I could suggest the SALTing of this article. - Rjd0060 21:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Posted to Administrators' Noticeboard. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#SALT. We'll see what happens from here. - Rjd0060 21:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you saw but it already was salted. That was a lot quicker than I expected. - Rjd0060 21:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greek mythology.

Done. · AndonicO ^Talk 00:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Nice userpage, by the way. :) · AndonicO ^Talk 00:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite a nice user page, I agree. I do believe, however, that the expression is "...nonsense up with which I will not put!" As in to put up with, to tolerate. Hope you don't mind me stumbling in unannounced. Cheers! --JayHenry 06:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Prohibition - film

I agree "hilarious" should be removed from before "Some Like It Hot"... I just removed the incorrect capitalisation that was already present. AirdishStraus 09:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Prohibitation

yeah, 1657 didnt seem right so i changed it to 1857 and then got confused and made it 17 before changing it to 1857. sorry 219.88.79.63 (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation templates

If adding references to a page that already has them, please use the citation templates - they're easy to fill out and there are numerous resources that let you do so automatically for books, peer-reviewed journals and certain other template types. Also, your recent edit to Gish duplicated some text, you may have already corrected it.

Thanks,

WLU 22:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

rather than harvard refs, i prefer to use the footnotes w/ ref and ref name. WLU 00:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to ask me if you have any questions about them. Once you figure them out they're pretty easy to use, but the formatting is pretty precise. WLU 00:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, it's horses for courses, and there are two slightly different types of citation templates depending if Harvard referencing is preferred (for multiple references to different pages of the same documents) or the footnote system suits better. Have added a note to Talk:Duane Gish#Re-write done. .. dave souza, talk 10:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality Project

Hi, I'm trying to ensure that the Neutrality Project has not become inactive. If you would still like to participate in it, please re-add your name to the Review Team list. _Jame§^ugrono 07:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yamashita's gold

Greetings…I noticed at one time you were very active on the Yamashita’s gold article. That article is now ‘protected from editing’ and into editing negotiations (POV pushing issues and such)

Please stop-by and give it a read. Jim (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good point

[10]

——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creation Science

Whatever you may say about the edits I made, they were NOT personal opinion. I am, I admit, biased, but so is everyone on earth. There is no such thing as an unbiased scientist...

If you would look at the facts, you would realize the absolute STUPIDITY of the evolution THEORY(it is NOT a fact...) The article mentions that creation is unprovable, yeah, whatever, it might be... but so is macroevolution! I believe in microevolution (i.e. survival of the fittest), and that IS testable but how can you possibly test macroevolution?

I was simply relating the facts to a blinded society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.6.121.48 (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for my harshness... but this is a subject that I am very passionate about, as you have most likely observed. If you were indeed referring to "unpublished" then I will agree to that... but it was not merely personal opinion in the sense that I thought that was true and it was original in origin.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.6.121.48 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 29 November 2007

[edit] Warning templates

Hi,

Were you aware of WP:WARN? I noticed you added what appeared to be a home-made warning template (which did the job very adequately) to Anon IP above's talk page. WP:WARN contains pre-written user warning templates which make warning users much quicker - just a cut and paste. They're simple enough that I've memorized the ones I used regularly and they save a lot of typing. But if you like the personal touch, I can respect that. WLU 19:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I do have a couple of suggestions/comments

1. Make your archive accessible - I can't see any archive boxes on your page despite having a template. Archives are useful for you, but also for others. I've never used that particular template before and archive manual, it's possible it's just broken or I just don't know how to access it.
2. pubmed/isbn Diberri's template generator and the Google scholar autocitation. I don't know if you're aware of either, but both are incredibly handy.
3. User:SandyGeorgia is fucking amazing, a brilliant editor. On the user page are tools that might be handy, I've only looked into a couple. If you find any really sweet ones that are browser-independent, please let me know!
4. You're newer than me, but seem dedicated and interested in long-term editing. Would you mind having a gander at an essay I wrote for noobs? I'm thinking about taking it for wider comment but would like some feedback. Most of the people who have commented to date are very experienced, so it'd be nice to have comments from someone closer to the audience it is aimed at. WLU 19:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I tweaked your archives and gave you a nice archive box, though feel free to revert. You had an external link, which is unnecessary, and this way allows you to add multiple pages within a single box (given the page name you have so far, I'd suggest Archives 2, Archives 3, etc). Just add a new bullet and a [[/Archives 2]] box, then paste into there. The front slash automatically creates a sub-page of the current page. Feel free to revert. WLU (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Louisiana Baptist University-AFD

Though I don't give a fig if the article is deleted or not, I wanted to point out to you that it has not been recently "abusively gutted". It has recently been stripped of information which was improperly sourced. The article has been a magnet for editors from one side trying to put a promotional spin on the article, and editors on the other trying to provide some balance to the hype through unallowed original research, speculation, and a self-published source. Unfortunately when there are few independent sources available, editors are often impatient to ignore WP:RELY, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH to fill gaps in the article space. Gaps in the available sources do not justify the abandonment of core policy. Removing non-compliant content is not "abusive", it's essential. And what should happen next is that editors source all edited claims, properly. If you can't source it, you can't say it~that simple. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• While I heartily disagree that there is original research or synthesis in the Louisiana Baptist University article, I question the timing and means of the removal, as well as the failure to observe Wikipedia policy in a spirit of collective work that would have had you tagging the specific issues that you felt needed to be addressed and simultaneously documenting these issues at greater length in the article's talk page. There is no evidence that you had performed any of these steps before removing approximately two-thirds of the article and a greater percentage of its sources. If you believe that the article in its entirety should be deleted, I encourage you to state your case at AfD. Removing sourced content on personal issues that have not been raised elsewhere in detail, and doing so during the AfD, strikes me as lacking in the basic spirit of cooperation and consensus-building that Wikipedia requires. Alansohn (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to say the timing issue seems not to be problematic. If one strips an article of the original research, which I think is easily demonstratable here, and is left with something that looks unnotable, then why not send it to AFD to see what others think? David D. (Talk) 16:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro to E

Thank you for your kind words regarding Introduction to Evolution. As you can see from our talk and as I can see here it can be a passionate topic. I probably should have started my Wikipedia career with something else. Just mentioning Darwin's finches lead to that un-Godly long diatribe on the Talk page. I'm hoping Sex and its requirement will not get as winded. I too wondered about the dismissal of asexual reproduction. Rapid cell division -- even if it is mitotic --- introduces tons of variation via mutations; bacteria and antibiotic resistance is my favorite example to share in class. We'll generate pages on this and eventually sane minds prevail. Ironically, we have yet to touch off those types of attacks (above). Guess they have not found us yet. Again Thanks the vote of confidence and affirming our hard work was not in vain. --Random Replicator (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude again; however, you disagreement on the importance of sex lead to an explosive serious of commentaries Talk:Introduction to evolution which spilled over onto the FA page Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution. If I may I would like to state here that at no time did I recruit you to support a view that would contradict User talk: Amaltheus. I am concern that the conversation thread above might be taken out of sequence. It came after you posted your position on sex and evolution. To my knowledge you have never in the past contributed to the article or offered an opinion on the discussion page. Sorry you were cast as part of the Wiki-gang for your disagreement on another's position. (Sigh) ... less politics and more editing would be good; and normally I would let this ride; but when it hit the FA page I was somewhat forced into a more defensive posture. If you are uncomfortable with this post to your message board that please delete it. --Random Replicator (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course you didn't recruit me. I've never spoken to you before I gave my support to the FAC, and our conversation since has never, at any point, been directed to Amaltheus. I hadn't even paid any attention at all to who had proposed or responded to the suggestion about sexual reproduction, and further, for my part, my reason for disagreeing to the suggestion had nothing to do with the age of its target audience, which I personally think is irrelevant to the question. I'm steamed myself when disputants start throwing ad hominem arguments at each other on the talk pages, even disputants who I'd otherwise agree with. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know! discussion on appropriate sources

Talk:What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!?#RfC:_Can_a_science_textbook_be_used_to_refute_a_pseudoscientific_statement_made_in_a_movie_even_if_the_textbook_is_not_about_the_movie_and_doesn.27t_mention_it.3F_Does_this_violate_WP:NOR_policy.3F

Hi! The position that I understand you to be taking in this discussion strikes me as so bizarre that I feel I might be misunderstanding you. Are you really saying that you don't believe a factual science book to be an appropriate source on a question of scientific fact?
Have a good one! -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creation Research Society

I'm having a problem with an editor on this article who's contesting the reliability of Numbers' account of this organisation. I don't think he has any legitimate basis for his dispute, but it might be helpful if somebody such as yourself (with access to a wider range of accounts than merely Numbers) could venture an opinion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I will not step in here again since you asked me to stay away. But this one is all yours.--Filll (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to evolution

We may have a concensus version of the problem paragraph. Freely edit the User:Dweller/evol#Final Version. Don't be shy. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration notice

This is to inform you that you have been included as a party in a request for Arbitration here ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ditto

Regards this edit, I've the same distaste, though on heavily contested pages, it's sometimes necessary. One thing I did with dissociative identity disorder today was removed the uglifying reference link if, say a largish block of text was all linked to multiple citations of the same source. Instead, I sourced (in this case, twice) the book, but for future editors, added <!-- comment citations--> like this : <!-- Marginalia, 2007--> that way readers don't have to see the citation, but editors still know what sentence is sourced to what reference. I don't know if this is supported by policy or guidelines anywhere, but it's handy. Doesn't make the editing any simpler 'cause there's still large blocks of text interrupted by comments, but you run into the same problem with citation templates and ref tags, and there's always the preview button. WLU (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I think it may be worth spamming on a couple pages like WP:CIT or WP:FOOT to see if it's an acceptable alternative to refname for heavily footnoted and disputed pages. WLU (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A minor miracle more like...

		The Minor Barnstar
		For dragging one of the notoriously uncivil creationism-related threads back on topic (civily), I award one, yon Professor marginalia, one minor barnstar. If you got it to stay civil, then you'd get a major one - the size of the whole internet! WLU (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism and Copyright

Thank you for your friendly note, but I do not agree with your understanding of policy. You state : "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." There is never a fair use word-for-word copy of someone else's work here that is not clearly identified as a "quote" to its source. At wikipedia we don't lift other's work, we cite it in references and write our own copy."

Your assertion that we cite something and rewrite it, is not correct. Our policies pages, see for example verifiability and original research clearly state that we can quote sources. And in fact give examples where sources are quoted. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase your above to include this issue more clearly. Wjhonson (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've struggled with the use of quotations myself. What I've managed to garner is an essay WP:QUOTE, and that the use of quotations can sometimes be see as placing undue weight on what is being quoted - since generally quotes are rare on wikipedia. Accordingly they stand out when used. My 6 yen... WLU (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've now added the {{underconstruction}} template to the top of the article to make it more clear to new editors that the article is undergoing various substantial rewrites. Feel free to remove it, if there have been several hours of inactivity. Thanks, have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RR

RR had been so harassed by certain disruptive elements during the FAC process, and had received so little community support, that he quit and had his account deleted. It is too bad, but on the other hand, RR quitting (and another) and the AfD is probably what it took to get the article enough attention to make FA, in my opinion. --Filll (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Like a barnstar, but different

You know how sometimes you hate checking your watchlist, especially when you see some anonymous IP has edited your favorite articles? The Ray of Sunshine is bestowed on that person that, when you see their name at the top of your watchlist, you know that all is right with the world, you can relax, and do something besides cleaning up another mess.

WLU (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks Prof Marginalia for the diligent work you did on the Anti-frogman techniques article. It is better now, and I have a better understanding of the NOR policy. N2e (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Check it out...

So all of our brilliant ideas are for naught. Check out what it says in {{cite book}} under the Description of fields. Of course, that only counts for the first reference, and if the book is used multiple times, we still have a problem. WLU (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit conflicts on new section

If you want to add a new section to a talkpage without getting edit-conflicts ("trying again"), you should use the +-link at the top of the talkpage to create a new section, rather than appending it directly onto the last section. Just a tip. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)