User talk:Sbharris/archive4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive #4 All messages from the beginning of July, 2007 to end of 2007.

BigNoseKateat17.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BigNoseKateat17.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. The Parsnip! 20:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC) The Parsnip! 20:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, the previous photo (before you uploaded a larger one) was so small and of such poor quality that I couldn't even tell what I was looking at. The new version is quite nice though. I don't have a problem with using both of them in the article. The Parsnip! 20:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:BigNoseKateat17.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BigNoseKateat17.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 18:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia Is Important

HI Steve, nice to see someone sensible on Wikipedia. Note that I think Wikipedia has become the new Google: most people under 25 in America today turn to Wikipedia as the FIRST source to find out about something. This, together with the fact Wikipedia articles are often the #1 search hit on Google and the fact that Wikipedia is often a bit errant (due to 'anyone can edit' policy), make it paramount that for the next generation, a rear-guard of reputable editors attempts to ensure we are educating our children properly. It may be seen as a positive, really, in the way way that computerization made 'card catalog files' obsolete, that much of our learning today takes place in the 'virtual' classroom. Unfortunately, it seems that the lack of direct interaction with humans often leads to the negatives of human personality to be expressed (we don't wear the 'face' of politeness like when we meet someone in person). This may be another serious issue in the long run.

Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 23:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

==Robert Young (gerontologist)]]

Hi Steve, I'd just like to bring this debate to your attention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Young_%28gerontologist%29

74.237.28.5 20:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

help wanted

I'd appreciate input on the dextroamphetamine talk page. I'd like to move on.--scuro 15:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:JohnSteinbeck.JPEG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:JohnSteinbeck.JPEG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 17:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Heat Content"

"Heat Content" is an informal term.

There is actually a note in my highschool physics textbook that warns students that this term is incorrect. It is labeled "PITFALL PREVENTION 6.9." (All throughout the book there are "PITFALL PREVENTIONS" that address common misconceptions such as speed = velocity.) The textbook then explains the difference between heat and thermal energy all the while taking pains to make it clear that heat is not a form of energy.

I know that this message is kind of random, but it is good to learn something new every day.

68.98.54.71 02:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, heat and thermal have been synonyms in English for centuries. As witness the fact that we speak of heat capacity, not thermal capacity. And heat of vaporization (which is an energy), not thermal energy of vaporization. Now, I realize that the word-Nazis are trying to redefine the words so they don't mean what they used to mean, even in the sciences. But at least they should be honest about it. As it is, they're pretending that things have been that way always, with just a bit of quibbling among non-scientists, while the "real" chemists and physicists of the 20th century always made a distinction between heat as being energy in motion betweent temp reservoirs, and never anything else. However, that's not true. I have dozens of texts on my shelves from this era to show it isn't true. Richard Feynman didn't define heat in the way the thermo-Nazis insist on. So try to erase and change the history of chemistry and physics if you like, but don't try it with me. I know better. And so should you. SBHarris 20:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on Sock Puppetry

Will you kindly refactor this comment, which seems to be a personal attack? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have taken out the most obviously personal part-- is that enough for you? But if somebody claims that anybody can be taught to fly like Superman, is it really necessary to AGF and figure they're entitled to their opinion? Or can one legitimately ask for a demo, and wonder publically why they personally don't make their living at airshows? SBHarris 22:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, gray area. But thanks for humoring my request - maybe we can keep things from getting too heated. Cheers. Wikidemo (talk) 09:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

John Steinbeck

Just to say thank you for improving and building on my edits to the article, especially the lead. I'm going to be editing the article over the next few months to get it to GA and would welcome a professional editor such as yourself to go over and make sure the new sentences etc that I add are clear and coherent! Thanks again! LordHarris (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm far from a professional editor, but as with everything, a second guy can always find things the first guy missed. Steinbeck's been a long interest of mine (I've been to many of his old haunts, read all the novels and much criticism, and over a lifetime have been assisted by my father, who used to teach a Steinbeck course at the university level). That doesn't make me an expert, but it does help keep me from making the really obvious mistakes. I'm happy to see anybody making constructive contributions, and have been watching yours with interest and also appreciation. Keep going! SBHarris 20:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Methylcobalamin

Hi there

I've tweaked your cut & paste move, by deleting the target page (containing the redirect) and moving mecobalamin to it. This way, we preserve the page histories. In future, you can place a {{db-move}} on the top of the "redirect" page, and an admin will come by and zap that page allowing for a proper move. If you prefer, you can contact me directly and I can fix it for you. Or, you might want to consider having the tools yourself? Hope this helps, cheers! --Rifleman 82 11:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Banks of Scotland

Just wanted to let you know that I responded to your comment on my talk page. I look forward to working with you. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the credit money article with your information on the pound Scots that I previously deleted from the money article. Here is the diff. You wouldn't happen to have any sources for that information?

I agree with your assessment that we should move most of the information in the credit money subsection of the money article into the article on credit money. What remains should only be a summary. Thanks again for calling me on that deletion, I think things worked out better this way. -FrankTobia (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't argue with it, now, though the credit money article is still slightly shorter than the section. I've added some links back to money. Thanks. SBHarris 23:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Followup to a post you made

Hi Sbharris, with regard to this post you made, I just wanted to follow up a bit without clogging Jimbo's page.

Where you say "99.999% of vandals are fools", I won't say "where's your data?" because I have none of my own. Using rough figures of 10E4 vandal attempts per day and 10E-4 success rate means one article successfully corrupted per day. I can only give anecdotal evidence, here are two data:

1. Look at this edit - I spotted this because it is on my watchlist; I have lived in both cities and know what my eyes tell me; and I was willing to check the cited sources. I had to check the reference to confirm what I already know, think of all the ways I could be wrong and check again, check the talk page and the editor's history, it took a half-hour to be sure I was right. Would anyone else have made that effort? If two other edits had been made, I would not even have spotted this change, and I can see no reason for this other than a deliberate attempt to introduce a subtle distortion into the encyclopedia and have the satisfaction of seeing it persist. This disregards the thrill one would have upon seeing a (lazy) reporter state that Montreal is second only to Vancouver in Canada for people of African origin. The edit introduced a subtle falsehood that would only be corrected by not relying on Wikipedia alone.

That's a good one. Would've been more believable if it was talking about Asian immigrants, but you're right. Those are the worst kinds of vandalisms-- the ones the seem somewhat plausable, but are wrong. However, I've seen a few of those in hold-in-the-hand paper books, too, so it's not clear if they're vandalisms or somebody misremembering something that got past the editors. I've been guilty of adding unsourced stuff occasionally as "whatfor" or "how it works" background fill in physics and chem and medicine articles, and the reason is I can't always identify where I read whatevr it is, although I've read it many many places. So is it wrong? Well, all I can say in some cases is, that it's the "conventional wisdom". Which in my own field of medicine gets overturned regularly! The reason usually being that "standard practice" was based on crappy epidemiological evidence, plus "seems reasonable" mechanisms, and somebody had forgotten to do (or couldn't do for ethical reasons) the test study (see below for PET discussion). Sometimes you can source this stuff, but it's usually some textbook written by some old doctor, with no citation. How long should you stay in bed after a heart attack, or after giving birth? And how the HELL do we know?? Seemed like a good idea to stay there quite a while, in 1950...

Needless to say, all one an do with wikipedia is stick in tags after uncited stuff you don't believe, or think should have a cite. Even if nothing changes or you get reverted by some nut who's sure of his opinion, but has no source (like me, above), it alerts the reader to a possible problem.

2. I take your point about the value of a person scheduled for a PET scan being able to easily reference the relevant information, there is no doubt that Wikipedia is now an incredible resource. My post on JW's talk previous to yours was to point out the need to educate others on how to use the Wikipedia resource - it could be temporarily wrong, so there is a need to understand how to interpret the information Wikipedia presents at the moment. Also, there is a need to be continually cautious of what a Wikipedia article is actually saying, in the case of PET, one might wonder about safety.

The PET article discusses the overall dose of radiation and discusses the fact that glucose is heavily used in the brain. I didn't see any particular tying together of the two, i.e. that the radiation dose tends to be concentrated in the brain. Of course, this is what makes PET so useful in brain scans, it is the anomaly that drew me to look at the PET article. However, that is not why I have chosen to discuss this article.

The major radiation dose IS actually to the brain, for the just the reason you infer (and the kidneys). But the brain is pretty radiation-resistant. Radiation-induced cancers in irradiated animals rarely include brain cancer, for this reason (or if it happens, it's way down the list of induced cancers). We assume that's true of people, but it's hard to prove with such a small increase in risk (followup study would have to be very large and long).

I checked the Safety section of the article and found this interesting addition. An editor with one single contribution managed to slip that sentence in and it has survived scrutiny to date. Is it true? I dunno. But if I was your hypothetical average person wanting to know what a PET scan was, that sentence of itself might cause me to decide maybe I would rather not have the test, and there are no particular outgoing links to cause me to doubt the veracity of Wikipedia.

Another good pick-up. But in that case you'd be using Wikipedia as it should be used, as a "tickle list" generator to make lists of stuff to talk over with the professional, when next you see them. In this case, probably a good thing. People just injected with PET FDG are INTENSELY radioactive for a few hours (half-life of radiation-decrease between one and two hours). The field is very penetrating gammas, and the only real protection is distance. Children are more vulnerable to the rad dose for theoretical reasons, and they don't let PET patients breast feed for 24 hours at least, also. Here's a quick ref: [1]. But if you try to get to the bottom of the recommendations, you'll see they don't originate from anybody's prospective clinical trial where they allowed close contact with children or not, by flip of the coin. You couldn't get that past the review committees. So it remains as a "best practice" thing which is backed up by somebody's theory and good judgement. I can't tell you whose.

Sorry to discourse at length, my point in all this is, well, I'm not sure, the public at large may be getting the impression that Wikipedia is authoritative, it does top Google searches after all; we could quibble about your 99.999% figure for overt vandalism but this may disguise the reality of subtle distortions being injected and persisting over time; and I will reiterate my statement on JW Talk that the essence here is to educate all on the proper way to use Wikipedia as a resource, perhaps more so than any other web resource given its very high profile.

Thanks for the time! Cheers :) Franamax (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I can't disagree. And admit that the 99.999% figure was an estimate from reverting a thousand vandalisms or so, and of course really should be about 99.9% +/- even based my own experience, because I only have seen one really clever vandal so far-- some guy who liked to change articles very subtley, and add a medical reference which looked totally valid, to a journal which was real. Except the article (on checking) didn't exist. A look at his edit dif showed it wasn't a single mistake, but a long running pattern. So we undid every one of his edits and I hope he got blocked. But no doubt he's back as a sock out there, and still operating.

On the other side of this, the worst bias I have to deal with in my own field is that of drug company studies, which are totally WP:V, and yet grossly biased and often wrong. Or not even wrong (example: New England Journal of Medicine reports breathlessly that Erbitux will give you another 6 weeks(!) on average to live, if you have terminal colon cancer. Cost: $20,000... those are some expensive weeks). And which bias professionals and their textbooks and practices, for years (think fibrates and heart disease). This is far worse than vandalism on Wikipedia, and harder to fight. In some cases it affects standard of practice, and thus ends up with some of the force of law. To "revert" it takes more than a button-- it will take a total change in government policy. So in some ways I'm rather happy to have a resource so widely read as Wikipedia, in which it's still possible to yell "That dog won't hunt!" or "That emperor may have no clothes," or at least "for the other side of this argument, look [here]." SBHarris 01:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits and edit summaries

Hi,

The last edit you made to Convection had no edit summary, and was marked as a minor edit. Please see Wikipedia:Minor edit for information on when to mark an edit as minor, and please also remember that without an edit summary, all the editors who monitor a page must check for themselves what was changed, so using an edit summary actually saves time. --Slashme (talk) 08:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I do know the distinctions, but occasionally when in the middle of a long string of formatting and grammar edits, I manage to leave a comment in something and forget the edit summary. I'll try to do better. However, please note that it's best to look at every change in every article you're monitoring. My experience of real vandals is that they're at least as good at making small changes as large ones, and they know about the "minor" tag, too. SBHarris 22:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I just re-read my comment, and I think it was a bit brusque, sorry. I myself don't set much store by the "minor" tag, and check anyway, but if I see a name I recognize and a sensible edit summary, I usually don't bother to check further. --Slashme (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: It's macrocytic anaemia, not marcocytic

I only linked a word in that article, and it wasn't "macrocytic." Wrong person. -- WiccaIrish (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Wups, so you did. Sorry. SBHarris 04:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Archived Talk

Your archived talk needs to be in the User talk namespace, not the Main or Talk namespace. They should be similar to User talk:Sbharris/archive1. -- pb30<talk> 04:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please move your archived talk pages to the User talk namespace, then place {{db-author}} on the Talk pages. (Sbharris/archive3, Talk:Sbharris/archive2, Talk:Sbharris/archive1 need to be moved). Let me know if you have any questions. -- pb30<talk> 04:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The Talk namespace is used for discussion on articles. The User talk namespace is for user discussion. Here's what needs to happen:

• Talk:Sbharris/archive1 to User talk:Sbharris/archive1
• Talk:Sbharris/archive2 to User talk:Sbharris/archive2
• Sbharris/archive3 to User talk:Sbharris/archive3
• Place {{db-author}} on Sbharris/archive3, Talk:Sbharris/archive2 and Talk:Sbharris/archive1

-- pb30<talk> 04:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, been there, done that. Oddly the first two archives survived in the TALK space without anybody objecting, for months. I copied the archive box from somebody else who'd done the same, obviously inappropriately. But all moved to corresponding user-talk pages now. Let me know if there's still anything amiss, and thanks for the help. SBHarris 05:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Everything looks good. Just need to wait for the other two pages to be deleted. Let me know if you need any more help -- pb30<talk> 05:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

speedy

hi. i'm not that familar with what a archived talk page is supposed to look like, but I didn't think that it's supposed to come up on the new pages log. am I wrong? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Naw, you're all correct. It's just that I can't figure out how to get it into the TALK space

I'll delete till I figure it out. SBHarris 04:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed

The double redirect problem has been fixed. Thank you for fixing it. (I love entei (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

Double standards?

I find this post troubling.[2] May I resolve your concerns about the Beesley AFD? Durova^Charge! 22:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'm always happy for more info. But remember I've been a veteran of many RfD BIO wars, and have argued that (non paper encyclopedia level notable) living people should have a veto on their own bios. But they rarely get it unless they're an insider, or raise a Daniel Brandt level of stink. And yet, where is that Carolyn Doran bio? I've SEEN it. It did exist, and now is gone, yet she's far more notable now than when it was posted. SBHarris 22:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with the Carolyn Doran deletion. I did, however, nominate the Daniel Brandt, Seth Finkelstein, and Angela Beesley biographies for AFD. Also the Rand Fishkin bio. All four nominations were made on exactly the same basis without regard for any of their affiliations. If you wish to question the Doran biography deletion, please do not suggest something improper was afoot at the Beesley AFD. Durova^Charge! 23:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• But you weren't the only one to nominate the Beesley article for deletion, or to try to redirect it to WMF. Many were there ahead of you, as you know. I take your word WP:AGF on your own motivation, but surely you can't pretend to speak for everybody else involved? Motivations are tricky things. I can't tell why people do things. I can, however observe acts and consequences, and I can monitor what people say. According to the Deletion Review, you nominated the Beesley article for deletion because she publicly expressed the opinion that she wanted it gone, and indeed had attempted to delete it herself once. [3]

  I observe that's not a courtesy extended to very many people who don't like their wiki-bios! After that, an admin whom you mentored (user:Mercury) said he deleted the Beesley bio after sleeping on it and deciding it had to be done. I suppose as a matter of inspiration. Of course, he caught hell for it, because this article is so carefully watched by people who think that WMF people get special treatment. [4] And then this administrator exercised his right to vanish!. How in the world am I supposed to assess motivation there?? Plenty of others didn't think it smelled right, however.

  Anyway, as to actions, I can only report what I see. The history of the Angela Beesley wiki is quite remarkable in two respects: 1) It's an Incredible Shrinking Bio, and 2) Said shrinking has been done by a small platoon of administrators (not even counting Beesley herself) over the last 2 years since she decided she wanted to bio to come down-- and not just editors at large (generally administrators have done the shrinking, deleting and redirecting, and plain editors have been doing the re-adding). But before that, it grew because Ms. Beesley put it up, and nobody thought it deserved deletion then (not you, either, it appears). I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like it. It is not yet policy that wishes of the subject of a questionably notable bio should have anything to do with the deletion process! (Please point it out if I've missed it). I'm pretty sure nobody would monitor my wishes for a bio of me if I made it known I wanted it deleted (fortunately I don't have one, and am not notable). However, I've seen other people have a terrible time getting their bios down, and the only reason I think Finkelstein and Brandt prevailed, is that they have considerable firepower as authors and website runners. Which not everyone has

  Now, please don't misunderstand. I agree very much with the idea of taking down bios of semi-notable people if they don’t like them (your heart's in the right place), but I'd like to see it happen routinely here as a matter of policy, and not some terrible battle-by-battle tussle, after which losing administrators are so pissed off that they vanish or sulk away[5] when the deletion is finally done, or undone.

  Finally, may I politely point out that if you don't know where the Carolyn Doran bio went, you're not enough of an insider to say how much collusion there is, or isn't, inside WMF on deletion of certain articles that embarrass somebody at WMF for whatever reason. Even if you were unwittingly part of that process on several occasions, you still might not know it. So again, the fact that I still reject your conclusion does not mean I don't take what you say other than AGF. SBHarris 02:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I really can't speak to the actions of other people, but I can shed some light on Mercury's actions. He did not consult me before closing that AFD. I would have advised him not to close it because some people had already been far too apt to construe impropriety. He did inform me shortly after he redirected the article and I was shocked. I immediately posted to state that I had no influence on his action and he apologized to me. I would much rather have seen that AFD closed as "keep" by an administrator who had never spoken to me. Durova^Charge! 03:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Miss Understood

Best teacher I ever had. Yuletide Felicitations! LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

But she's nasty: gives the test first and the lesson after! SBHarris 01:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Vitamer

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Vitamer, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:MajestySignetCover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:MajestySignetCover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.