User talk:LeadSongDog/Archives/2007/November
 | This page 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. |
WW1
Any particular reason you protest the need for a citation for the statement regarding vimy ridge and national myths? As a physicist I'm sure you appreciate the need for documented verification of contentious statements, and the national myths page seems rather subjective. Halogenated 04:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's just out of place. The content belongs on the Vimy article. Give it a read, see the refs there.LeadSongDog 05:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't seem to find more cited information on Vimy in any of these articles. I'm not necessarily disputing this stuff, just suggesting that some verification is necessary. Halogenated 17:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've come around somewhat re cites in the article. See Talk:World War I. The Battle of Vimy Ridge and Hundred Days Offensive should cite at least Berton, Barris, Christie, Schreiber if not others. National myth seems to be still largely unreferenced, either start-class or A-class.LeadSongDog 17:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Making Editorial Changes to External Links and Suggested Reading for UHMWPE
Hi, I see you have been working quite a bit on the UHMWPE page, but I am a bit perplexed by changes that have been made to the External LInk and Suggested Reading sections. Out of the 100s of articles and papers for UHMWPE I am mystified how the current items made the current "short list." There should be some basis or rationale for having these if they are not references. Thanks PolyMuse 04:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Further reading is normally used to identify info that is thought to be useful in providing citations. Once an editor goes through them to compile useful specifics, if they actually ARE used that way, they move to the Reflist and so no longer need a spot in the Further Reading section. If they have no usable content they are taken off entirely. External links are normally online info. We normally look for secondary references or in some cases primary ones (where there is reason to especially trust the primary source. Examples of trusted primary sources are patents, audited annual reports, etc.) LeadSongDog 04:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- In discussions with a friendly lifeguard, it was suggested that background reading and external links should not be commercial links (e.g., to professional plastics.com). Please see my comments on the UHMWPE article discussion page itself, I think we should discuss building a more authoritative list of noncommercial external links and background reading. Thanks. PolyMuse 05:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Re: Karibu Airways
In response to your message, I do urge you to add as much pertinent information to the page, but an entire article for the incident would be excessive. It is a minor crash with extraordinary aspects. Either way, the page should not be in the categories that I removed. – Zntrip 23:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Archiving murder talk page
Hello :), I'm one of the editor of the murder page and I saw that you were pretty active on it lately. I'm thinking about archiving part of the talk page of that article which become excessively long. Do you think stopping at the Statistic section is a good cut or do you got another suggestion ?—Esurnir 00:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I lean to just setting a bot to archive on schedule and leaving it.LeadSongDog 01:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, the books I removed are listed at the List of World War I books that is why they are there, so they do not have to be on the WWI article taking up endless space. This is not a slash and burn edit. Thanks Chessy999 12:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- You went through the whole list and checked each one? There were no edits on the List of World War I books with your name, so I concluded that you hadn't. My apologies if you've done the detail work, but it was a lot of deletion to let slide without confirmation.LeadSongDog 01:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits to this article. I noticed that you added "State" after "N.Y" Is this part of APA style? In Legal citation, the state is often assumed. I did not revert it. Bearian 15:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't consider APA style, it may not conform. However, WP is for a global readership, most readers wouldn't know which (state or city) is implied.LeadSongDog 17:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Cat7
I clarified the edit you made and provided the original press release. Feel free to use the information and express it in other words (I'm ESL).
Anyway, it's an amazing technology. 24.81.130.107 17:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I tagged the article as part of Wikiproject climate change because plate tectonics is a cause of non-man-made climate change.--Jorfer 05:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Is this in reference to volcanic activity or something else?LeadSongDog 05:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Charlestown
Hi. Sorry I cannot help personally, but I have left a request at our WikiProject talkpage:
Good luck! --Mais oui! (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Colorectal cancer
I'm puzzled why you left a {{nofootnotes}} tag on colorectal cancer. In fact, there are 34 of them. If you have other concerns, perhaps a different tag may be needed. JFW | T@lk 19:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Most of the sections have none. I could have gone through and done a separate tag on each such section, but it gets repetitive.LeadSongDog (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, went through it section by section.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you not find some references yourself? Leaving tags about without simultaneously improving the articles yourself is not exactly productive.
The template you were looking for was probably {{Refimprove}}. I have added this now. JFW | T@lk 07:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- The point of the nofootnotes tag is that the references may be in the article, but they don't get called out in the paragraphs, so you don't have wp:v. There's more to wp:cite than just listing references, they need to appear in context. It's far easier for the editor who inserts the text to identify where a statement originates than it is for others. That's why the tags exist as a communication tool. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this topic is too important to leave the article in this state.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I suspect that IP is related to a long-term Notre Dame vandal - see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive327#Add.27l_IP_of_Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse.23Notre_Dame_vandal. --ZimZalaBim talk 19:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Western Airlines Flight 2605, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Western_Airlines. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 16:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)