User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2014 July

Previous · Index · Next

Jump-to links
2024   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2023   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2022   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2021   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2020   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2019   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2018   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2017   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2016   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2015   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2014   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2013   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2012   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2011   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2010   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2009   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2008   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2007   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2006   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2005   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2004                                                           Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

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.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sensory loss may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [{Category:Physiology]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now trying to clear "biograhies without listas parameter backlog", [1] is correct? It gets pretty tricky whenever article is about a music band. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "Air Lane Trio". Remember this is the "listas" for all the WikiProjects. As far as I can remember, and I did a fair few bands, they pretty much all go with the title even things like "Jack Dorsey and his Orchestra". There may be some beginning with "The" which you want to send to the end. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC).

Thanks, "The Rolling Stones" is listed as "Rolling Stones, The", so you are correct. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on Template talk:Language with name#Suggestion: An optional literal translation? Yaris678 (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answered there. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC).

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Norman Joseph Wisden. Since you had some involvement with the Norman Joseph Wisden redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful when adding dates of births and deaths in articles. I have had to correct multiple ones over the last few days. When you don't know the date or year of death, like with Herbert Hamblen, then don't add a guess; your "c. 1920" turned out to be 1908. Please take care to use appropriate categories instead of placeholder ones as well, like you did in that same article. Fram (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work Fram. Rich, you really used {{Footnotes}}? I had seen that code, almost one year ago when I had registered. It is outdated now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not "nice work" to assume bad faith.
• "Reflist" is gobbledegook. I wanted to re-purpose {{References}} for that template, but unfortunately the unwise actions of certain editors has made that difficult. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC).
  

"assume bad faith"? Your source didn't include c. 1920, no sources I found included it either, and I did find one that had the correct date. But apparently "c. 1920" wasn't a guess but something else? Just like your 1838 birth date for George Ranken, the previous article you created, was not a mistake but a typo you repeated in the article, the persondata and the category, without noticing that this would have made him only 18 years old at the time of his death? Right... Fram (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rich. I have gone through the list you supplied at the bot request page. Could you please update it for me? Thanks. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 14:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will endeavour to do so. For my reference the original request is at this archive page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC).

This time there are 40,843 articles to consider, that's some 200 new articles. I'll let you know when I have the final list. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC).

There were only 75 pages that met my criteria, I suspect most of them may be false positives. I have put the list in the same place. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC).

Got it. Thank you very much Rich. Question: Do you think AWB could help me identify unneeded flag icons in physical geographic infoboxes? I am thinking about installing it anyway. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 21:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC).

I meant to undo your recent edit, which would allow me to explain this action. About.com is not a credible source, in my view. And the other sources also seem to fail the rather lofty standards for WP:MEDRS. I realize that the intentions are good and I am not a medical person. But as a scientist there is no way I would trust about.com for anything. Thanks and let me know if you feel I am out of line. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About.com is a resource that has to be treated carefully. The reliability is related to the author, rather than the site as a whole. Having said that I am perfectly at ease with the removal of these sources, which were only meant to illustrate the sentence "The goitrogenic effect of Brassicaceae vegetables, interfering with iodine uptake, is also a concern at elevated doses." While this seems true, and easily supported, the question of whether it should be a concern, and at what levels seems far more interesting, and reference to a suitable recent review article would be ideal. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC).

Please consider, in re: Smokefoot's point: If the evaluation of a source must be reduced to the evaluation of the credentials of the contributors of individual articles to that source, then we have answered our question. We are doing the work of an editor of the site itself, about.com (as, for instance, is done at Encyclopaedia Britannica, as they choose the editors that write their articles). That is, if we are reviewing article authors, we are tacitly declaring that the source, per se, is not generally reliable. Realize, that while a person with the right training and credentials can be expected to evaluate, article by article, the validity of the scientific material it contains, we not only do not expect this of WP editors, we specifically decline to allow it. Via WP:OR, WP:INDY, WP:SPS it is clear that the expertise required for editors to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable material from primary sources is not presumed, and so, e.g., as policy, the OR required to determine primacy of discovery based only on primary sources or self published sources like patents is not allowed; instead, we have to report what scholarly secondary sources report. The extension of this line of thought to declaring some but not all content of a source acceptable is clear; to whit, about.com, as a source, cannot be considered an acceptable source. If a reliable author presents information there, it must also be available somewhere else in the verifiable scientific literature.

While there can be some wiggle room in the secondary sources dictum—e.g., a first total chemical synthesis of a natural product, or the first detection of a long-sought fundamental particle, etc., discoveries likely to go years before review and being accompanied by a torrent of high quality scientific news reporting (Science, Nature, etc.)—I cannot see how this qualification can be extended to picking and choosing for allowable articles within a particular source. (If there is independent confirmation of a posting there, from another high quality source, the about.com posting is not needed.) Simply put, doing author evaluations to determine article reliability is OR; if one has to do this, the source is not reliable, and a further source of the same material must be sought. One editor's opinion, but if you do not find this persuasive, consider moving the matter to a higher level place for adjudication. This is a fundamental matter, and there is no sense in people editing at cross-purposes, because the matter is not a settled one. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there is no dispute here, see the following section.

Secondly, your words are focussed on science, where systematisation (at least in some fields, and over a recent time-scale varying form field to field) allows us the luxury, where paywalls do not intervene, of access to research papers, reviews, letters, summaries, abstracts and all the other published apparatus of academic discourse. The same is not true, in the extreme case, of current affairs, and to a lesser extent in many fields, whether they are the subject of academic or private study or not.

Thirdly, the distinction between primary and secondary sources is fluid, to say the least.

Fourthly, while there is concern over interpretation of more primary sources by Wikipedians, and improper OR and SYNTH, this is a matter of degree not kind. For example it is allowable to assume that two biographies of Edward Elgar refer to the same person, and correspondingly, though some would frown upon it as being a primary source, it would be absurd to disqualify his death certificate as being a good source.

Fifthly, it is widely accepted that nothing is simply a "reliable source" or "not a reliable source" - the question has to be asked "a reliable source for what?" I would have little compunction about accepting The Sun as a reliable source for football scores that were not in dispute, but a lot for details of educational policy of the current government.

Sixthly it is a capital mistake, of the kind made by the early detractors of Wikipedia, to assume that the gatekeepers of establishment knowledge are infallible, or on some cases, even that good.

Seventhly, when we draw on older documents, we have no "impact factor" to fall back upon, and we have to make the assumption that editors, and to an extent readers, of general articles can distinguish the nature of sources, and the likely causes of bias. In certain cases we can expound these clearly, in others where there is no appropriate meta commentary we can merely present opposing commentaries.

Eighthly, it behooves us to remember that part of the reason for the introduction of some policies was to protect against crack-pottery. While they generally serve us well in other circumstances in some cases they are over-strict, and in others insufficient (which is why, for example, we have WP:MEDRS).

Ninthly, WP:SPS is a little strict in that there are some fields (even today) where the authority operates outside the establishment and self-publishes. Certainly I had the pleasure some years ago of meeting a collector of East Anglian pennies who's group had self published and self printed the authoritative work on the subject, and Leigh Rayment is the go to source for the titled people from Britain (though we tag all our cites with "better source needed").

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC).

Hi again. Thanks for the non-threatened response above. I always fret about backlash for a revert, etc. In any case. I am v interested your comment on the reliability vs authorship for About.com (and Answers.com, I guess). I recently revealed by skepticism for these sources at User talk:BullRangifer, who also concurred. But just because he and I agree doesn't mean that much, so I am wondering if there is a "higher power" who would pass judgement on his reliability issue. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If in future you want advice about a specific about.com page, then the folk at WP:RS are very helpful. In this case, although the author has written extensively about thyroid, I would be reluctant to re-introduce the cite, because diet and health is so often fringe, especially where personal experience is concerned, and, as you remarked above, MEDRS. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC).

About.com usually publishes that has been already published. It is often easy to find the original source. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

…that a particular article be removed from the oversight/review currently in place? I am a semiretired professor, and have had problems at the Jack Andraka article called to my attention. I also was, very early in life, similarly, and ISEF participant and award winner. I am about ready to begin a scholarly, careful, section-by-section edit of the article, and if those edits are each time faced by long approval delays, it will make it very difficult to get this project finished, and to have Talk discussion properly focused on the overarching matters of the article. (Edits are easiest to add one section at a time, but because some edits involve moving text between sections, discussion is best after all edits actress sections are in place.) How can I have lifted, even temporarily, the reviews that lead to these delays? RSVP here, thank you. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article knowing nothing about the subject, and I gathered from it one salient fact: the process designed and developed by the subject has not, at the time of writing, gathered any independent scientific support. Indeed significant doubt has be cast upon its usefulness. (Of course I understand, as do you, doubtless, that this itself doesn't reflect badly upon the inventor, and that there will probably be more work, and that something very useful may or may not come out of it all at the end.)

As to removing the current restriction, once you are "auto-confirmed" it will not affect you, (basically that is a few days and a few edits after creating your account). If you wish, though, you can ask the person who imposed it, though he seems to be on an extended WikiBreak, or ask any admin (I am not one) or ask at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC).

Obviously concur on the main point of you first paragraph, hence the professorial attention. In re: alternative ways forward, perfect, thanks. By the way, I enjoyed the "Things that stayed too long" section on your User page. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are cordially invited to revisit the article and the AFD. I also showed that "Pathé Communications" and "Pathé" are not the same entity and why. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for swinging back by. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have created redirects Henry G. Aikman and Harold H. Armstrong, but they currently link to Harold Hunter Armstrong, a nonexistant article! Is this an accident? Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are very observant! But, no it's not an accident. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC).

Oh, you just created Harold Hunter Armstrong. I thought that you made a silly typographical error! Happy editing. Piguy101 (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've added some new references for the Tupolev Tu-98 article and I was wondering if you could check it out to see if the citations needed template can be removed now ? Your bots edit is the only one that corresponds to the same edit date for that template so I hope I'm not asking the wrong person! ☭Soviet☭ (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! I took off the {{Unreferenced}} tag. Would be nice to have a source for the specifications - I added a tag there. You (anyone) can remove a tag if it has been dealt with. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC).

[2]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

The article Patricia Ainsworth has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable per WP:AUTHOR. A real author but not notable; all works have vanished into obscurity.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnBlackburne: I've added a better source for now, can you check? This author has authored over 50 books. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first source? That's only two sentences, an entry in a prose list, from a 200+ page book. As for 50 books I could find only the eight at the second source. There's an American MD with the same name who's written a number of books, but it's not the same person.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ainsworth's books were translated, re-issues in the 8-s and had large print editions. What wouldbe useful would be access to London Review of Books, and similar works. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patricia Ainsworth is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Ainsworth until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Patricia Ainsworth may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [{Category:Australian women novelists‎]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I shall treasure it always. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC).

Oh ya. I've been meaning to tell you that I enjoyed reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia has more... moluɐɯ 12:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Farmbrough, I see that you have been a contributor to WikiProject Citizendium Porting. I am inclined to mark it as defunct, as there has been no work on it in a couple of years and it seems unlikely that Citizendium will be a useful source of content for Wikipedia articles in the future. Is that o.k. with you? RockMagnetist (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest we merge it to the missing articles project. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC).

But all of the relevant articles exist already, except where the subject has been marked as "likely not notable". RockMagnetist (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This project addresses missing content which is more subtle, and would mean expanding the scope of the "missing articles" project, so it would be a true merge, not just a subsumption. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC).

Just to clarify - my understanding of merging a Wikiproject comes from these instructions, where a project is converted to a taskforce. But a taskforce still must be managed by someone. No one has ported content from Citizendium since 2010; do you have any reason to think they will start doing so? RockMagnetist (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emijrp/Citizendium has a list of articles, which shows that many are missing. I think this is worth taking to Missing Articles. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC).

So by "merge" do you mean add this list to the links in Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles#Links and then mark the project as defunct, or should more be done? RockMagnetist (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rich Farmbrough: In this 75th year of the congressional founding of the US Coast Guard Auxiliary, I am trying to thank every editor who has had a hand in crafting the Wikipedia article about founder Malcolm Stuart Boylan. Thank you very much for your efforts through the years! May you have fair winds and following seas all your days. Taram (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC).

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to T7 phage may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• test the utility of the system ''[[in vivo]]'' tumor ablation, a T7 cancer gene therapy [[plasmid]]] vector, pT7T7/T7TK, was constructed. This nonviral vector contains a T7 autogene, T7T7, and a [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your warm welcome. You're very kind. :)TuffGongster (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Those Were the Days!(film). Since you had some involvement with the Those Were the Days!(film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Dreaming (band) – USA. Since you had some involvement with the The Dreaming (band) – USA redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Michael Lee Curran,. Since you had some involvement with the Michael Lee Curran, redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]