User talk:Otheus/Archive 3
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Christene LeDoux, 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) 21:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Professor Ennis/the BBC's Horizon Homeopathy Test/and 20/20's Homeopathy Experiment
[edit]Greetings. I just got a chance to read your posting from March 2007 at [1]. You provided an excellent summary of Professor Ennis' and my concerns about the BBC's and ABC's "junk tv science." To clarify, Ennis assumed (incorrectly) that the Horizon experiment was a replication of her study, until I obtained the protocol from the experimenter, Wayne Turnbull. I have now posted the protocol that he used [2]. I discovered this serious problem just before the 20/20 program was going to begin their study. This information shocked the 20/20 producer, but typical of tv, he decided that the "show must go on." Unlike the BBC that specifically stated that their test was a "repeat" of Ennis' work, the 20/20 show didn't make that claim (wisely). They instead asserted that "their" experts said that the study was well-designed and well-controlled, though they didn't mention that none of their experts had any experience with basophil research, let alone homeopathic research (whoops). Therefore, junk science became junk journalism. If you have any more thoughts here, let's talk. Dana Ullman Talk 03:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's pretty cool of you to follow up like that. I see a lot more has been done to that page (and the talk page) since I went semi-dormant. I wish I could add something to the conversation, but I cannot. The trail is a bit cold for me, and I am busy IRL. Otheus (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I understand...we all seem to have a lot on our plate. What is interesting in THIS story is that I have darn good evidence that the BBC and ABC's 20/20's effort to create "reality science television" in a way that created junk science and junk journalism. It isn't hard to see this by simply looking at the trail that I've cited. What is further interesting is that Dr. Martin Chaplin, one of the world's leading experts on water research, has just begun to edit on wikipedia (yeah, I know that "other" people are reading this, but my ethic is to be transparent because I have nothing to hide). I hope you will reconsider or at least encouraging other people to look under the covers a bit. Dana Ullman Talk 00:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you could supply the evidence re the BBC and ABC ibid, it would be useful. Also any documentation about Dr Chaplin apart from the SL website to support the world expert label will help. Acleron (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Dana, please don't follow up to Acleron here. Acleron, this is my talk page, not Dana's or the topic's. Though this certainly isn't a private conversation, your interjection here seems to me to be an agitation, a challenge; I don't know if this counts as wikistalking behavior, but a pattern of such posts probably would. --Otheus (talk) 09:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've only just been alerted to your reply, sorry for the severe delay. However, asking for information can only be considered agitation or a challenge if that information is already available. If it is available, please do not prevent it being supplied.--86.2.161.180 (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- My point is, please find a more appropriate talk page to discuss this point on. Thank you. --Otheus (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Gary Parker
[edit]Hi, I just noticed your comment from a while back on my talk page. I'm not aware of any article on him on Wikipedia and I can't find any AfDs so I think we don't have one. I don't know if he meets WP:BIO or not. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Copy edits and the massive backlog
[edit]Hey there!
I'm sending you this because I noticed you were active in the former league of copy-editors. I joined the LOCE something like a few days before it became historical, and have been making a somewhat lonely effort to reduce the copy-edit backlog, so I've been curious - why did the LOCE close, are there any efforts going on out there to reduce the copy-edit backlog, and do you think there's a point in establishing (and would you join) a wikiproject purely to maintain the category of articles needing copy edits?
I've been having a hard time getting people on related projects (WP:PR, WP:GAN, etc) to help with the backlog, so I'm trying to gather suggestions or help regarding starting a project simply to maintain the category of articles needing copy edit.
Thanks! ;) --Samuel Tan (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Re:LOCE
[edit]Hi there! Well, the LOCE did end in some sense. Some (perhaps most) of the members did shift over to Peer Review, but the latter has different goals. As far as I could gather, the LOCE's original goal was to work on CAT:COPY, but towards its demise it had shifted largely to dealing with personal copy edit requests, and this led to its closure because it did not have the manpower to handle the many, many requests. Right now, Peer Review handles copy edit requests and does not deal with CAT:COPY, which is why I started the new WikiProject. Hope that's clear enough! :) -Samuel Tan 11:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- There were some very nice templates that were set up for LOCE. Hopefully you can re-use those. Your comment above and the demise might be a reason to add a sort of moderator feature. That is, simply rejecting those that seem to be "personal requests". --Otheus (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Mediawiki extension Require Editor Privilege
[edit]Your question in mw:Extension_talk:Require_Editor_Privilege:
- This extension allows to restrict which registered users are allowed to read and write in the wiki. This allows to be much more restrictive then simply asking for registration. This makes sense when using the wiki for confidential information inside a company. --Xypron (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your edit summary at the Georgia Tech page, I would like to note that the definition of alumnus usually includes those who merely attended a school. Indeed, Georgia Tech proudly touts Carter as an alum. Still, I prefer your choice of language to the original, so I certainly won't change it. The old one was redundant, and "probably" is generally unencyclopaedic. Anyway, just thought I'd note. Cheers. 71.203.185.108 (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. I am open to both approaches of languages: that words be treated accurately in their historical context, and that they be allowed to evolve in meaning as their context changes. When choosing between two modes, what is important is maintaining consistency of use. Wikipedia defined alum from the American Heritage Dictionary as a former graduate. Thus, for the sake of consistency, non-graduates should not be considered alums. However, as you note, the school touts Carter as an alum. So if proper attribution can be made on this point, then I see no problem with that being introduced.
- And by the way, the etymology of the word suggests that an alumnus is one who was adopted as an apprentice for learning a life-long trade or as a pupil for life-long study. The term "graduate" is actually an older term and refers to the narrower context of completing an academic "step", which is now understood to be a degree, but is not necessarily so. I'd venture to say, then, that as the terms "graduate" and "alumnus" are overlapping used in varying contexts, modern usage is just as well.
--Otheus (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Lg new logo.png)
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Lg new logo.png. 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) 05:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
){kind=link}
I wanted to express my thanks for improving the lead section of Georgia Institute of Technology. You and User:Durova did a magnificent job, far better than I could ever hope to come up with myself. :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's very kind of you. --Otheus (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- FYI we nominated it for Featured Article: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Georgia Institute of Technology/archive1 —Disavian (talk/contribs) 09:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Denialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unomi (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion notice of Christene LeDoux article
[edit]
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.
A tag has been placed on Christene LeDoux, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Christene LeDoux and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
AfD nomination of Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)
[edit]An article that you have been involved in editing, Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wolfview (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Template:Cooldown has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 17:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)