User talk:NYScholar/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:NYScholar. 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 1

←

Archive 4

→

Bluestein citation on PPNA page

Hello, I was wondering why you restored the Greg Bluestein citation with the broken links into the Palestine Peace Not Apartheid article. The links don't work when I try them, so isn't it fair to say that a new citation is needed? Or is the WP policy to leave up broken links on the assumption that they used to work? Or do the links work, but just not when I try them? I don't know, but since you restored the citation, I'm guessing you have the answer, and I am curious.... Thanks. Organ123 05:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll check it; the link that I added worked when I tried put the source in. I'll double check it. Thanks for alerting me to potential problem. --NYScholar 05:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way: the citation is one that I verified and checked when the link did work. One can remove a link and just list the full citation information. People can read the article in a library. Not every article remains accessible online. --NYScholar 05:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

True. Just to be clear, these are the links that I'm talking about: 1 and 2. Thanks for the rapid responses. Organ123 06:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I added an interpolated editorial comment (visible only in editing mode) saying that both those sources with currently outdated URLs were verified when the links worked, and I've added some additional sources commenting on the issues. If I find an archived version of the outdated Bluestein links, I will add that later. Don't have time to do that now. But thanks for the heads up. (Originally, I wasn't sure why you had removed those sources.) --NYScholar 06:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Here's a cached version which I just added to the note in the article. --NYScholar 06:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You could try the new Google News Archive Advanced Search. It will usually spit out anything that was ever printed, usually with just an abstract and citation. But you can trick the search by using keywords that are in the quote you are looking for. The Google summary returned will usually contain a couple of sentences that include those keywords. Also, the pay-per-view archive abstracted articles are often still available on the original website for no fee, they have just moved the page. You can try putting in exact quotes and use the site: parameter in the regular web search, and often find the full article that you thought you had to pay for. Some publishers, like TIME Magazine and some of the UK papers, have everything they ever published still available online as well. - Crockspot 17:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Exact passage

Carter said Friday that Stein hadn't played a role in the Carter Center in 13 years and that his post as a fellow was an honorary title. "When I decided to write this book, I didn't even think about involving Ken, from ancient times, to come in and help."

He also said his book was vetted by Carter Center staff as well as an unnamed "distinguished" reporter.

--NYScholar 06:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Linking to you

I didn't realize that linking to someone's wiki page was problematic. What is your reasoning for why that is a bad thing to do? Is there a policy about that? Does it attract vandalism on your page? When I did it on the "Commentary" page, I wasn't thinking there was anything wrong with it. Sorry if I violated some policy or annoyed you. Thanks. Organ123 19:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If you examine the other references to the names of other users in your own and others' comments on that talk page (see the editing history differences), you will see that they do not have active links. My own personal preference in Wikipedia (listed in my "preferences" feature) is not to use such a link. In Wikipedia a user's own "preferences" govern how a signature shows up (with or without an active link). I do use the four tildes, and my signature shows up as it does in my talk page comments. (The editing history has the active links.) That is my "preference" in Wikipedia. As I say in that article's talk page, I did not know who was referring to me; I simply removed the unwanted active links to my name in the talk page discussions. Please sign all your comments on talk pages. Please follow guidelines and policies in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and WP:NPA, which both emphasize that in talk pages of articles , one is to focus on making improvements to articles and not to focus on contributors. (Follow the links at the top of the talk pages of articels.) I archive comments on my own talk page (see statement about that here). I just do not have time for these kinds of personal discussions in Wikipedia. Please see the message at the top of this page and my other comments on my talk page. Please remove the unnecessary references to me from your own comments wherever possible [use ellipses if you want: "..."]. Please scroll up for my own replies to other users on that article's talk page and please see my earlier comments in the archived talk pages of those related articles. I provided the links. Thank you. --NYScholar 19:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for explaining that about the preferences. I am also a busy person, so I don't always have time to do as much research as I'd like on everything I'd like to research; I thought it would be easier just to ask you why you didn't want to be linked to. Also, as far as I can tell, I do sign all of my comments -- as I commented in the article, it seems that perhaps you accidentally removed my signature from one item. Finally, I will not to refer to you unless absolutely necessary in the future. I referred to you in the context I did because I thought your quote related to my argument (you have since let me know it was taken out of context), so I didn't want to just take the quote and not mention you. Of course it is not my interest to focus on you; I'm interested in fixing what I see as a balance problem in the article. Perhaps you were referring more to Andyvphil, I'm not sure. Anyway, thank you for your explanation. Organ123 19:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The links that I removed were in other person's/other people's comments, not yours, I think. (It had actually surprised me when I read your comment on the talk page apologizing, as I had not thought that it was you who quoted me; but the point relates to anyone quoting material out of context. I did understand your point, but it was squashed by a subsequent user, which just made matters more personal rather than focusing on the actual content of the article.) Please see the editing history. Please add or re-add your signature and UTC (accessible in the editing history) to your own comments. Thanks. (I did not think that I removed signatures of others. If there are unsigned signatures in comments and if I have time, sometimes I put them in through researching the editing history via the "unsigned" template.) --NYScholar 19:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. Sorry for any confusion. Organ123 20:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; I checked the editing history, and the links that I removed were apparently in your comments. It doesn't matter to me who put them there, however; I just prefer that they not be there. Tried to clarify that in brackets in the article's talk page. Thanks for understanding. (I left three of your asterisks which appear to be bullets after colons that you had there for threading. You might want to make sure the comments appear as you want them to. In general, colons are used for threading (see the talk page guidelines already linked). --NYScholar 20:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)