User talk:DGG/Archive 1 Sept-Dec. 2006

Please do not leave me a message here, but on my current talk page

Biology articles

Hi there - See Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology amd Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. --mav 12:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HOAJs

I actually came across the article while on new article patrol. I really enjoy that particular patrol because it allows opportunities to make the types of additions I made to this article early in its life. I don't have a particularly large amount of expertise on topics like this one, but I was happy to do a little bit of online research and a little bit of formatting work to help things along. Good luck with your project -- I'll try to remember to check out what you add. Erechtheus 04:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC) </smalll> == Welcome == I came here to see who's working on impact factor and some other articles I'm watching. Heh. Looks like the Welcome brigade hasn't been here yet, so here goes:Welcome! Hello, DGG, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: *The five pillars of Wikipedia [reply]

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Rl 06:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC) /x[reply]

tabulation of publicly available data is not plagiarism

manually tabulating publically available data from each journal's website is not plagiarism. aggregating 'IF's by various scientific disciplines is adding new analysis angle on data. just like if i retabulate/redesign data from a table into a figure-- its not plagiarism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Epiding (talk • contribs) 07:33, 19 September 2006.

I do not agree: here's why

a/ you are reconstructing the table from ISI's own data; the ads have used snippets, so its their fair use of JCR. One knows they obtained it from JCR, because they attribute it. You cannot go through the ads and reconstruct JCR's own data and publish it. If you want to do it for your lab, then it would be fair use. (of course you could do it direcly from JCR because Harvard has a license and it covers such internal re-use.) b/ the retabulation of the data by subject is trivial. I've done it for internal use hundreds of times,. It would take about 15 minutes to do each of the subjects, by pasting the data into Excel. This is not a creative activity. If you want merely to combine subject categories to form an overall one, you don;t even need Excel. You can select them all at once in JCR, and it does the sort. c/ One of the factors of whether it is permissible depends on the amount. Whether the amount you have is permissible might be debatable. Perhaps you should send their legal department a link to your blog and ask if its OK; then you can say so. I judge that it is not, because no conventional publication has ever used that much material of theirs. d/ I write as one who has been frustrated for many years by the inability to reuse large amounts of their data in my own projects.

The copyright is in the compilation, which is far more creativity than the "telephone directory" standard, which in the US is the example of what is not creativity. At least in the US, it is perfectly permissible to gather one's own citation counts from journal articles and compare a competitive list. (You have to do it from the journals, not WoK --there are restrictions on the large scale reuse of WoK data, as the license screen warns.) Perhaps some of the data should be made freely available. I will myself ask ISI for permission to post some figures from a prior year to indicate the usefulness of the material--it's time they said yes. If you want to discuss this offline, send me an email. btw, its standard practive to add the 4 tildes as a signature, even if it's obvious, so that others will know. . DGG 06:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== newbie to Wiki, and data adaptation discussion== Thanks for your advice DGG. I will take your advice. And because I'm a newbie to WIKI, I apologize that I yet know all the standard protocols to everything yet.

But as a side discussion: In the past when I have published in JAMA (3x times), I have noticed that certain other journals such as BMJ have reproduced my figures from my JAMA article (SAME EXACT DATA!) and republished them in BMJ with only stylistic edits. However, it is techinically legal because the information is presented in a slightly different layout-- even though its the same information. Thus, it would seem that the re-arranging of information layout, even if its the same data, does not constitute copyright infringement - at least that's how the BMJ and British Medical Association interprets it. If you want to see what I mean, I can email you my JAMA article as well as BMJ's reproduction (which only acknowledges "adapted from", and doesnt say "permission from").

In any case, this is an interesting discussion. Thanks for all your help DGG! Epiding 06:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC) ==glad we're cooperating== As for the journals, Give me the refs and i will look. I'm not sure what you mean. This probably comes under one of two r category a/ , which is fair use for criticism, or news value. BMJ does this a good deal, and so does Nature. In our situation, if you wanted to explain why IFs were better or worse than method X, it would be appropriate to publish a list of comparisons. There's an excellent example on the impact factor page, section 3.2 b/ I am almost certain that in this situation BMJ would indeed ask permission, and probably pay for it. But send me the refs. If you;re the author, you could appropriately ask JAMA. I just added something on this to the scientific journal page, but just as a start [reply]

There is a good deal of nonobservance of copyright everywhere. Thereason why I feel I have to be extra careful is the work I do for OA. Publishers would love to catch us, and all the OA people try to be irreproachable. The reason to be careful here is that WP has been acquiring a bad reputation for this. The guidelines are strict, but widely ignored. It's one of the things that could very easily hurt WP badly.

I also ask your apology for any of the tone I may have used. -- I had the feeeling that several people were coming at me over the same thing from different directions, and probably you felt the same. Perhaps WP time is too fast. I almost never respond to a posting on a list until several hours later, and this is just as public.

Email me using the link, and let's talk on the phone. Just as with email, electronic communication tends to get people angry with each other. DGG 07:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks- impact factor

If you had read the comment I left on Epiding's homepage, you'd know that I did point out that adding links to one's own website/blog is generally frowned upon (but I also try to adhere to WP:BITE). And I've been involved in copyvio fighting more than most, so don't assume that I have a cavalier attitude towards copyvios. However, asking sources for permission when we don't need to is often problematic; for instance, there are plenty of museums that will happily claim copyright on paintings hundreds of years old and will not give a permission that was never for them to give in the first place. I am very aware of the ongoing expansion of IPR, but I don't know of a precedent that gave ISI a leg to stand on if they complained about someone publishing a select few numbers out of thousands, like the blog in question did. It may, however, be interesting to see how ISI reacts. – One more thing: I don't intend to add the link in question, but please don't announce your intention to revert based on your knowledge; always assume that there are others as knowledgeable as you are; the proper method of getting your way is arguing your point on the talk page. I know it's sometimes frustrating to educate ignorant people when you know better, but educating and explaining is our mission both as academics and as WP editors. – Let's take the impact factor (and related copyright discussions) to Talk:Impact factor, there are too many discussion threads right now. Rl 07:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Your comment on the probability project page

The probability articles are somewhat difficult for someone without a background on higher mathematics and probability theory (this latter field suffers a lot of discrimination, so it's a rare knowledge even among mathematicians), but they need to find a balance between comprehension by the amateur reader and encyclopaedic content for the professional reader (like me).

Anyway, if you (or any of your clients at the library) have an doubts about probability and Wikipedia answers doesn't suffice, you might try Wikiversity. In the last few days I have been trying to movement things aroud there. --Lucas Gallindo 19:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Adding them all?

Surely not, but I like fossils. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 05:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the huge number of species living or extinct and it has never been my intention to add them all! The number of enthusiastic wikipedians willing to add their contribution is increasing daily and I am confident that a few years from now we might have a very comprehensive database of known animals and plants. The database will probably even be complete for mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians by then. My goal for now is just limited to the proboscidians. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 20:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe.....

My interest in prehistoric life goes further than dinosaurs, so I also edit pages on other prehistoric animals. Today's animal life also interests me, by the way. Jerkov 14:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

numbers

I believe the usual estimate is there are ~250,000 known fossils; are you doing them all, or just the genera? If you do genera only, that would be what? 50,000? I guess 50,000 is a practical number. At 10 a day, that's about 15 years--faster if you share the work, as seems to be the case. Much less if you only do the vertebrates.

If you were adding all species, the estimate of known living species is about 2 million. May estimated the true number of living species would be 10 or 20 times that.

(these include all Kingdoms. Because of the immense number of insects, the proportion of animals in each case might be ~80% of each number.) DGG 16:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see it as my mission to add every genus known to science (I don't know all identified genera), it's just that when I see something in one of my books that isn't on the site, I add it. Jerkov 19:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your lucky day

Sort of! <g> I've been wiki-absent with RL and am on a sick morning—I've even been ignoring email for up to a week! <boo-hiss!> But then again, librarians are some of my favorite people.

Don't see what you did in e-books or with the merge needs anything from me, but wanted to acknowledge your post in mutual return of your courtesy on the heads up. I'd be inclined to leave the Baen paragraph, but I'm admittedly partial—I added it in the first place when I first learned of the differences in the philosophy's of the ebook publishers. The only one that is making significant money at it is Baen, as you can read in the 'Prime Palaver' archives (no longer an active feature) of the Baen Free Library. Do try to remember that being digital, the dead-tree standards of not repeating info DON'T APPLY to our milieu... and repetition is the mother of learning. (Ask any teacher!) <g>

You might want introduce yourself to your collegue Pegship to check it over. The text of the lengthy debate on e-book vs. e-book naming, pretty much should suggest the standard for all e- stuff, or so I would opine... the point was raised during the debate and an attempt was made to pull in a lot of outside input from posts on divers literary related talk pages, so it got a good hearing from a wide body of editors. Best regards // FrankB 15:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC) (cough, cough!)[reply]

You are right about the dead-tree standard in one sense: there is no penalty for repetition. I don't think you are right altogether: less-immediately relevant material in a long article makes it longer, and less likely to be read through. Being able to put it separately has been one key virtue of all hypertext.
I wasn't advocating a blanket policy, but noting that some seem to think that minimizing things that are covered elsewhere as an important high priority concern, perhaps as a side effect of the way they were trained, whereas in my engineering work, it has been my negative experiences with such terseness that have lead me to ensure some important things, at least, are mentioned more than once if the context warrants it. I've also learned from being primarily a trainer in the USNR for thirty-years that reading comprehension levels differ greatly, and to cover the fundamentals in passing as itroductions to advanced materials.
So in sum, to me a good article makes few assumptions, and uses hyperlinks to connect should the reader want more in depth information, not relying on same to convey the sense of the mainline discussion. If one has to forward to an link to get the meaning of a sentence, paragraph, or article, to my view, that is a grieviously flawed article.
Nice to meetchya, glad you already knew Her Pegship. She's good people! BTW, when she made that post suggestion, I'd discussed it with her on her talk, iirc, and left it to her to implement or not. So NBD, either way, save we agreed to disagree, perhaps? But then if I didn't want edited, I wouldn't write—anything, much less any wiki! Cheers! Look to see me more in a month or so! // FrankB 18:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration on History of biology

DGG, you might be interested in this month's history of science collaboration, History of biology. Cheers--ragesoss 21:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vested interest?

Howdy :)
   You might want to look in on list of fictional books which is at AfD. Cheers! // FrankB 13:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I did--and I'm glad you told me about it.

The vote, before I added mine, was Strong Keep: 6, Keep:2, Delete:2
And I found From WP:List --Information
"The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists."

If your meaning is that I have an inordinate fondness for lists, I do find them extremely useful, especially when trying to keep track of things that are all over the place. I would have not been able to orient myself here without them. DGG 00:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


One more vote for the coordinator of the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject

Since two of the three editors nominated for Coordinator of the MCB Wikiproject declined their nominations, one more vote has been posted: should the remaining nominee, ClockworkSoul, be named as the coordinator, or should nominations be reopened? Every opinion counts, so please vote! – ClockworkSoul 17:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The troubles with Gutenberg

reposted from User talk:James Arboghast:

I've made some suggestions on the talk page for "printing" I don't intend to mess with the typography parts, though I'm interested in them, but I do want to work a little on the history of printing. Among the various pages, it's a little disorganized. DGG 04:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. I'm aware of the mess and anxious to POV-align everything related to Gutenberg and early moveable type printing, but too busy finishing Typography and History of typography to tackle the problem directly right now. Next year, possibly, I may be able to pitch in and help.
In the meantime your suggestions at Talk:Johannes Gutenberg#questions and other points. look like the best course:
  • "Perhaps some of the perennial discussion on this and related pages would be allievated by an article, Printing in China and Korea. there is enough for an article, and it's a subject fork, not a POV fork, and the split would match most people's interest in one or the other. There's obviously two different traditions, tho there may be links. The very disagreement of the editors here is evidence that there is more than one POV."
  • "The controversy over whether G. was the true inventor has been going on since the 15th century. Strongly asserting there is only one justifiable position is not evidence. The copntroversy, in fact, is such a major subject of intellecual history, that it could merit its own article. (btw, from what I know, I do think the key figure was Gutenberg. The verb in the last sentence was 'think.'"
Yes, absolutely, this is the answer. Here's what I think we should do:
  • write 2 new articles [[Printing in China and Korea]], [[Gutenberg controversy (or a better title)]] in a private sandbox where there won't be any edit conflicts.
  • make [[Printing in China and Korea]], [[Gutenberg controversy (or a better title)]] and [[History of typography]] featured articles and protect from anonymous edits.
This needs a mandate from Jimbo Wales to clear the decks of Printing, Printing press, Gutenberg, and Gutenberg Bible, to cease all POV-pushing and secure the arrangements & resources neccessary to the task. I'll see if Ryan Freisling can help with that.
Going by the templates posted on Talk:Johannes Gutenberg quite a few editors are pinning their hopes on Johannes Gutenberg. I wonder how many of them know that G's picture is not even authentic—just another fictional historical portrait. More people need to read John Man and James Burke.
I have to finish History of typography first because it's mooted to become a featured article, but feel free to leave questions & reports on my talk page and I'll do my best to respond. I own a 1968 EB, Can anyone post or point me to a transcript of the 1911 EB typography & Gutenberg material?
Arbo talk 18:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

discussion

I used the 1911 version at http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Typography
there is also a version at http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/TUM_VAN/TYPOGRAPHY_ie_writing_by_types_.html
even less readable. (& a shorter article on Gutenberg, by the same author--John Henrey Hessels. At least the 2 don't contradict each other) (I also have a paper copy of the reduced-size American printing, and a good magnifying glass)

  • I've just made a preliminary pass over the "Gutenberg" article, and will make another, to at least get what is in there worded more accurately. Further changes await.
  • Next step, Gutenberg Bible--again preliminary.
  • A key question before reorganizing in general, is what should be the main article? Probably Printing. You apparently prefer History of typography, What do you consider the present state of that page: I can see what's there. (MY first impression is that too much is included.).I;'ve put some comments there, apppropriate to that page. Have your compared it to the page movable type?
  • I am fairly sure we want to go the same place, but I am not sure about methods. A properly edited page should be relative resistant to subsequent bad edits.

For further discussion, I suggest emailing me from this page. --- User:DGG


Any particular reason for email? I think it defeats the openness and good faith model of Wikipedia, and for that reason I will only collaborate on talk pages at WP.

"A key question before reorganizing in general, is what should be the main article? Probably Printing. You apparently prefer History of typography..."

"...use unified POV based on History of typography supplemented by..."
Sorry if that was unclear, I was pressed for time. The main article should be Printing, and base the chronology on that given in History of typography—as a starting point—it can be supplemented and expanded to the requirements of Printing.

"What do you consider the present state of that page: I can see what's there. (MY first impression is that too much is included.)."

It isn't finished yet. I recently added sections on Italic type and French typography in the 16th century. The 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries will recieve similar depth of wordage. Aiming to finish all that by end of October. I won't be available at WP during November and December 2006.
Which parts do you think are "too much"? It's tough deciding what to include because printing and writing are so closely tied to typography. Possibly the section on Moveable type could be donated to Printing, but a summary will have to take its place to maintain integrity of the narrative. The Brief description of the type casting process in History of typography can be replaced by a link to a new article Type founding, the text for which will be an expansion of Talk:History of typography#Rewrite.

" Have your compared it to the page movable type?"

Yep, and I don't think there is too much overlap. Printing press (movable type) covers the whole kaboodle of type + press and the effects, outcome etc, on the world of the invention. History of typography concerns itself solely with movable type in relation to the development(s) of typography, and would make less sense without it.

"I am fairly sure we want to go the same place, but I am not sure about methods. A properly edited page should be relative resistant to subsequent bad edits."

What aspect of methods are you unsure of? If the finished articles make A grade we can have them protected, no problem.
Thanks for the 1911 EB source :)
Arbo talk 20:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject Newsletter

The project main page has gotten a facelift!
When people visit the project, the very first thing that they see tends to be the project's main page, and with this in mind, the main page has been completely overhauled. To enhance readability the various "goals" sections have been merged, and a detailed "how you can help" section has been added. To increase accessibility for more established members, the links to any resources that were in the main body text have been moved onto the navigation bar on the right. Finally, the whole page has been nicely laid out and given a nice attractive look.
New project feature: peer review
I'm proud to announce the addition of out newest feature: peer review! The MCB peer review feature aims serve as a stepping stone to improve articles to featured article status by allowing editors to request the opinions of other members about articles that they might not otherwise see or contribute to.
Project progress
The article worklist
We’ve had quite a bit of progress on the worklist article in the past month. Not only has the list itself nearly doubled in size from 143 to 365 entries, but an amazing three articles have been advanced to FA status, thanks in great part to the efforts of our very own TimVickers! Remember, the state of the worklist is the closest thing we have to quantifying the progress of the project, so if you get the chance, please take a look at the list, pick a favorite article, and improve it!
Collaboration of the Month
Last month's Collaboration of the Month, cell nucleus, was a terrific success! In one month, the article went from a dismal stub to an A-class article. Many thanks to all of the collaborators who contributed, especially ShaiM, who took on the greatest part of the burden. This month's Collaboration of the Month, adenosine triphosphate, isn't getting nearly the attention of its predecessor, so if you can, please lend a hand!
Finally...
The project has a new coordinator, ClockworkSoul! The role - my role - of coordinator will be to harmonize the project's common efforts, in part by organizing the various tasks required to make the project run as smoothly and completely as possible. Many thanks to those who supported me and those participated in the selection process.
If you wish to opt out of having the newsletter posted on your talk page in the future, you may add yourself to the opt out list
Newsletter concept and layout blatantly "borrowed" from the Esperanza newsletter.

Re: drum scanner

Please explain to me how a signature and a handful of nonsense characters is 'entirely appropriate' to any article. Would you prefer that I had left it, and not corrected the user? →DancingPenguin 00:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Differences of opinion

Hi, thanks for your comments on my page. I just wanted to write you again and stress my opinion that diversity of POV while maintaining cool heads is what makes WIKI strong. You and I are gonna disagree on allot and that's fine. My chatting with you on my talk page was simply discussion about things you mentioned on my talk page. Regarding editing specific articles, it's all about the citation and keeping my own POV out, in place of the notable experts' POV. Anyway I'm glad you're here and look forward to collaberations. Peace. --Home Computer∴Peace 14:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

apology granted

thanks for the apology.it's just fine.Nad pl dnot be in hruy.Yousaf465

Printing mess

Retrieved from User_talk:James_Arboghast:

"Perhaps it is time to do something about the "printing" page, and I'd like your advice--try to fix it, rewrite it from scratch, or merge it. They all seem prolematic given the nature of some of the prior edits. DGG 02:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

I'll post my report as soon as I can. I've posted comments on the Talk:History of typography. Sorry for the delay answering. Have a great day!
Arbo talk 13:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested help from top admin MONGO to get rid of Gun Powder Ma and protect all the articles we are working on. See: User talk:MONGO#The Phaistos disc, Gun Powder Ma, the troubles with Gutenberg.
Arbo talk 09:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Librarianship versus Library Science

Hi, David. You'll have to forgive me for not remembering where I saw this question discussed. I think you were saying librarianship and library science are the same thing in your mind, and wondering if anybody had a distinction. I can't cite an authority for this, but in my mind the distinction is that librarianship is the practice and library science is the theoretical knowledge base underlying the practice. There is knowledge embedded in librarianship the practice but library science is more theoretically based and doesn't involve knowledge learned from experience. Librarary science is strictly the theory, while librarianship is the practice, incorporating knowledge from experience as well as being informed by library science. That is how I look at it, but I'm not sure how I formed this idea.

I've somewhat lost interest in wikipedia; that's why I haven't been contributing to any of the pages on bibliographic databases. I'm glad you came along and took over that work. I think you're doing a good job. Rlitwin 14:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

== History of typography ==

Hi DGG. I've completed the text up to the end of the 18th century and deleted the sections on prototypography, movable type, gutenberg's hand mould, and 19th -- 21st centuries.

Give me a few days to create the new articles and get them into shape. Then we should compare notes to coordinate your work with mine. Neat-o!

Is there anything I can do for you?
Best regards, Arbo talk 18:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: getting the articles frozen. I'd ask but I don't think admin will do it for a short time span of a few days. They will only protect a page if it's being seriously attacked by vandals.
Arbo talk 00:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entropy -- a measure of the dispersal of energy/T

[Wish your email had been available. The link now leads to a "Bad Page" notice.] I saw the Talk:Entropy (energy dispersal) page for the first time a few minutes ago. First, let me get rid of a bit of irritation! To call this view of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics (just!) a 'teaching method' is, to me, like calling your occupation 'a piling of books on shelves'

OK with that off my emotion, let me seriously and sincerely try to solve your problem of presenting entropy to beginners. I KNOW a way that it can be done, but admittedly it is late in the semester for perfect success. First, I would urge that you read -- to see if you think it would be a good start for your students -- "Shakespeare and Thermodynamics. Dam [sic]the Second Law!" It is what C. P. Snow should have told his audience of literati at Oxbridge and elsewhere but perhaps was too arrogant to do so. It's available online at www.shakespeare2ndlaw.com. It is the best bridge from the humanities to chemistry and the second law that I know -- and it sedulously avoids any mention of entropy!

Then, although it is a lower level of QandA writing for beginning students (after the ignorable 'stimulant' Home page), www.secondlaw.com is a very readable (I'm told) slow and measured introduction to entropy and the second law. It climaxes in a final page much like shakespeare2ndlaw.com but far stronger because now the second law has a moresolid base in measurable entropy -- although there is no math required in the pages.

These two sites have about 22,000 readers (from over 100K 'hits')in the winter months -- and the comments from young and mature readers, in science or out, give me confidence in saying that they could well meet your needs for the class.

The 'teaching method' of QandA may be rotten, but the CONTENT, the description of entropy in those pages, is not just for beginners. It is far from just a 'teaching method'. It is the conceptual approach that will be the general view throughout science in the future -- as has been the absurd 'disorder' for a century -- because it leads directly to a quantitative evaluation of microstates from a clear view of the function of energy in entropy measurement. FrankLambert 23:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

intros / mary-claire king

Hi DGG -- We were talking on the academic notability criteria & I referenced Mary-Claire King. There is now a wikipedia article on her b/c I started it. It needs more folks to work on it, though. ... btw I'm a librarian too. --LQ 20:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AD/CE

Thank you; I'm glad to be agreed with. I think you have neglected to give full weight to the hypothesis here: that anyone who was editing the sentence otherwise, change either form if they objected to it, which does cover most of the systematic biases you suggest; unfortunately, it is not the way things do happen around here, as you observe. Some of the others have, I think, negligible effect on the problem; others (like the effect of limiting editors on this English WP to those who read English) are features, not bugs. I will think about the remainder. Septentrionalis 17:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

databases

I added a quick comment to Talk:List_of_academic_journal_search_engines, but mostly -- anything that can be done to both clarify this topic & hopefully move it to a better title would be great. We certainly only need one list of bibliographic databases (journal search engines?) -- I think the distinction between the two things is too fine to have two or more lists. There's also category:online databases, just for extra fun. What a mess! -- phoebe 05:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See comment on that page. I agree, no distinction between dbs and search engines in general, but I intend to divide by form into several smaller articles. DGG 07:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and I almost forgot, they won't be pure lists, but articles with lists. DGG 07:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Printing?

I think if the history section grows in Movable type, we may need an article called history of movable type (or history of printing) or whatever.

I cannot see how any article titled "History of X" can exclude the earliest history of X. Attempts to put the earliest history in some article like "history of X in geog:Y", to my mind, may be a (possibly subconscious) attempt to glorify certain non-Y traditions.

There is a difference between history and prehistory. History is the part where there are written records. There are records for the chinese invention, and for the european. There are none for the transmission. Consider the difference with paper, where the invention is known, and many individual steps of the transmission of the invention from china to the west are documented, both by artifacts and documents. History of X in Y is not because it is earlier or later in Y, but because it is separate. It would be highly appropriate for the chinese WP to have articles,

history of printing, and history of printing in europe.

In any cases the history and technique of block printing is not the same as for movable type, nor is movable type the same as stamping. Presumably one developed from another, in the East as well as the West, but the only case where this can be documented is for Gutenberg and some of his contemporaries, who are known to have done work in block printing and also in movable type printing.

DGG 02:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please contribute to the ongoing discussion in village pump (policy). Once the dust settles on how this article should be named, I would be more than happy to contribute what little I can. mukerjee (talk) 06:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it might have been easier to talk about things there if you'd let me & others know earlier that you had raised the qy there, but I suppose that's obvious.DGG 05:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Education for librarianship

I notice you just stared this article. Are you aware that there is already an article for Library school? Does each deserve a separate article or should there be a merge? LarryQ 20:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't seen it--thanks--Should it be merged into the new article or the other way round?05:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I placed a merge question on the Library school page. We should wait a few weeks and see if other Wikipedians have an opinion on this and then proceed or not with a merge. Thanks. LarryQ 12:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art & craft development v.s technical development

reposted from Talk:History of western typography:

History of western typography is focussed almost exclusively on typographic style and practice as an art and craft, with almost no info on technical developments. That's what Typography, for the most part, is—an art & craft, involving type style and design. Perfect.

Movable type and typefounding are dearly written-about as a separate subject in Movable type (thanks for your additions guys!) It covers the pre-history of typefounding and technical developments in the East, but has little on developments in typographic style as an art and craft—as you would expect. Perfect.

History of typography in East Asia is much the same scope as Movable type but with far less content. It's purely technical and has next-to-nothing on developments in typographic style as an art and craft, use, page effect etc, no names of typefaces or designers. Not so perfect. There is a whole new project for editors interested in filling in this gap in History of typography in East Asia. Thanks!

Remember that it doesn't have to be perfect, and you're encouraged to ignore all rules and use common sense if it results in a better encyclopedia :)
Best regards, Arbo talk 12:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typology

Thanks for your comments! I don't know if you can get a ref into the H of Typology to Giulio Campagnola - see Manutius bit - (brand-new article of mine). I don't know anything much more than is in the article, but he may have been the most major artist to design type in the early years Johnbod 22:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks!! Heavenhelllord 19:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

the link you just left on my talk page does not lead anywhere. I'd really like to see how that discussion goes, so it'd be great if you can fix it.

Thanks.--Roland Deschain

I just came from Evolution to say the same thing. I'm very interested, but the page you mentioned is redlinked. Please clarify when you can, it sounds promising. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from Embryology

Hello DGG, I noted your Geneticist list. What a daunting task given so many researchers use molecular biology and genetics in their research (so many animal models). I guess you have a specific definition for a true geneticists. Anyways, I appreciate your comments on the Embryology Talk. It is a subject in great need of attention. I would appreciate any assistance you could offer and any valuable advice.GetAgrippa 19:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The genetics people have been put in by User:TBHecht, and not by me. I can only hope to do as well on similar lists on related subjects. I would agree on the primary classification of about 90% of the people, especially because molecular biologist is an extremely general term & the more specific genetics or cell biology or [ ] is probably better when possible. For graduate school I applied to a department of virology, and by the time I arrived, it had become a department of molecular biology. DGG 03:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Degree of certainty

Ratso, you would find it rather difficult to prove that nobody every was thrown off the earth by rotation, as you say at RD's page. You are assuming it as common knowledge, but do you yourself personally know enough physics about the world in general to prove it? Particularly, would you be able to prove it to someone who really did have a doctorate-level knowledge of physics and was for some reason determined to prove you wrong? I know that evolution took place for analogous reasons. I know of zero evidence to the contrary, it is consistent with the structure and behavior of living organisms as we find them, and fits into a satisfying general world view. (I do admit to having the advantage of you--I am quite prepared to prove it at a research level, but enough good scientists at WP have already done so.)

No they haven't proven that all life came from a common ancestor; nor can they prove that evolution causes changes toward the more complex. Do you think things are changing toward the more complex? That's ultimate proof that you are wrong.

The proof of a scientific theory is that it makes predictions about what will be found by observation and experiment, and nothing is found that contradicts it, or is not explainable by compatible processes. Darwin made specific predictions about what yet undiscovered fossils would be found, and so they have been, while none has been found that is no explainable. It makes predictions about what will happen in laboratory and field genetics, and when the different aspects of genetics have become well enough known, the predictions results support it. It particularly makes predictions about the common origin of life, and when molecular biology does finally a century later decipher the genetic code of apparently unrelated organisms,it is found that the sequences of the genes for their basic functions are very similar. It predicts the differences will be less for mammals than for vertebrates in general, and for 100s of genes, so they are. It does not at the beginning have an explanation of the rise of new functions, but when developmental genetics is known sufficiently, an explanation is found.

Related functions of genes indicates common design. You cannot at all use this as proof for a "common ancestor".

It could have been otherwise.We might have found strange fossil fish, but none that looked like an intermediate to amphibians. We found a prehistoric skull that did not fit into any really sensible pattern of evolutionary development, and 40 years later we found the evidence that it was a deliberate fake. We might have found that the genes for cytochrome in different animals were totally different in sequence. We might have found that the very peculiar species of bacteria not known to Darwin had their cells organised altogether unlike anything else, but we found that their cells had DNA and RNA and proteins, just as we, but sufficiently different in detail to explain why they were peculiar.

Darwin's theory says nothing about ultimate causes. What it says is that, since the origin of life, no phenomena have occurred which require for their explanation a divine intervention. The origin of life remains open, but even that problem seems tractable to scientific methods, and the area left unknown has decreased continually since Darwin.

As you can see, evolution cannot explain the origin of life without saying that it came from nonliving chemicals. Nobody has yet been able to make life in a laboratory, but they may someday and this will only place forth stronger evidence that intelligence is required in the production of life.

This is enough to be proof. The true analogy is not being thrown of the earth but atmospheric dynamics. We do not yet know this subject to be able to predict in detail the weather over the next twenty years, or even the next month. But nobody now supposes that the weather is a divine miracle each day, for we do know how the patterns one day give rise to those of the next. We know better than to try to solve the carbon dioxide emissions problem by expecting a miracle that will destroy 90% of it for us. DGG 05:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The weather does come from previous patterns, but who sustains these patterns? God of course. Nobody is expecting a miracle that will destroy 90% of carbon dioxide emissions for us; it is up to us to use our resources wisely, after all, God did say that we're supposed to take care of the earth, not destroy it. Ratso 16:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments, especially the last of them, for they have nicely illustrated my point. As I quote from my user page

I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience. DGG 03:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:DGG/evolution

Peer review of bacteria

Hi there. I'd value your input on this article. Thank you. TimVickers 05:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you caught an important mistake, thank you. TimVickers 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic article

An article that you have been involved in editing, Electronic article, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic article. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Ohconfucius 10:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primary contributions and the policy of 'corrections'

I would appreciate it, when could restrain yourself from following up my contributions and correcting them all the time. I know Wiki is there for everybody, but it took me several hours to work through literature on the history of compass which is rather complex (and was, moreover, in freaking French!). I tried to give references for every specific statement I made, as you may have seen. In view of that, I find it rather offensive, how you changed quick handedly my wording AND blamed me for "ethnocentrism", while the term 'the true mariner's compass' can actually be found in one of my peer reviewed sources (Technology and Culture), which you did not read, but I did. But this is not surprising considering that you primarily seem to work only with the red pen at Wiki, with little genuine contributions of your own, or at least that is the impression you convey. Regards Gun Powder Ma 05:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do not descend into personalities. This would be really absurd here, since we after all basically agree with everything important. I would have more time to add positive material if I did not need to correct error so frequently. The place to discuss the content is at the articles, and I will continue to do so, and I will continue to correct every error I recognize. I do not claim ownership or primary contribution to anything. I do not want to antagonize you or anyone--I have resolved never to make a critical comment about any individual, but only about the work. Some articles require a little technical knowledge, as will be judged by those who know more about compasses or about printing than probably either of us. Anyone can appear ethnocentric by accident of wording or because of unrecognized assumptions, and I include myself. Should I do so, I would want my wording called to my attention, so I could learn better. DGG 05:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Never mind. I got a bit touchy, because just after finishing my contribution, material on which took me some time to collect and figure out, it already gets revised on grounds I could not follow. I think if you were writing yourself more often you might understand that more. Regards Gun Powder Ma 11:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Higher intellect project

I have marked this one for deletion. The site doesnt even have a google PR yet.

Evolution

Re [1]: where? I can't find anything coming near to a consensus that this change is at all necessary. I wrote most of this section and I assure you it has gone through a very thorough review on talk, several times. Please don't change it without consensus on talk. Mikker (...) 20:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... I am WAY confused. Ignore what I just said... :) Mikker (...) 20:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"words" in talk at Movable type

Hi David.
"I have not been here anywhere near as long as some others, but in looking both around at and page histories, I have never seen anything constructive done using words like "accuse" "POV pushing" "ethnocentric"..."

You're right about "accuse". I won't use it in future. Thanks for pointing it out.

"POV pushing" is standard wikitalk acceptable in most circumstances. This is the first time anyone has told me they think it's problematic (inflamatory?) I won't say "POV pushing" in future if you think it's inflamatory.

I did not write "ethnocentric". Please look carefully at the text of my post, where I wrote "Euro-centric". Mukerjee introduced "Euro-centric" to begin with, and nobody was offended by it.

Gun Powder Ma introduced ethnocentric. I've refactored his personal attack by striking it through. It's widely accepted practice to remove such personal attacks outright. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Striking them out is a softer measure to let the eidtor know they have breached the code of civility and no personal attacks. I've also refactored my posts, editing out my poor etiquette and uncivil

Note Gun Powder's vitriolic words regarding me: "You have no clue part 1", "You have no clue part 2" etc. All I did was ask him to provide reliable references for the statements he made.

"The reason is that I can not find a single case in wiki editing or the RW where even justified insults have done anything other than make the matter worse. DGG 07:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)"

I didn't set out to make justified insults. I'm human and get emotional at times. I've ssen you get emotional and indignant too, and the negative effect it has on other editors—but I don't complain about it. Life's too short.
Arbo talk 14:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movable type

That last post of yours - should it be Main (not mail)? Also please note block printing has gone - merged with woodblock printing Johnbod 19:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Johnson Page Move Proposal

I think your response was somewhat imprecise.  If you have a chance please revise your statement for clarity.  P.S. If proposal is successful, I do not believe the dab page will be eliminated with this change.  Instead it will either be a redirect to Samuel Johnson or vice versa. TonyTheTiger 06:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I am not annoying you, but I have added a short explanation for the survey on the page that serves as a reminder of the proper consideration. This is above your responses. If this changes your response repost. If not I am sorry for pestering. I hope it does change your response however. TonyTheTiger 06:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

[name deleted] contain eBay eBooks that are wanted by many and are usually sold on eBay for $5 or more. This is a valuable resource and is appreciated by many. I believe that it will be a good resource for many. --Y Dude 20:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In a word, no.
  • The page lists only self-help pamphlets, and not many at that, and is therefore inappropriate for this list.

Much as I like E-Bay, this is totally inappropriate, and please do not try to add it again unless the site has more real book content. examples: 101 everyday tips for losing 10 pounds., 65 Tried & Trusted Amish Recipes etc. Furthermore, many of them are not pdfs, but rather .exe files. Downloading such files from such a source is dangerous. A site which can so easily be used for attacks is unacceptable, and should be unacceptable anywhere. DGG 01:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Bustamante

I agree with you that being a member of the National Academy of Sciences should be enough to show he is a distinguished scientist, but why should his listing in Time magazine be removed entirely? Is it because it's not a strictly scientific magazine or is there some other reason? I'm sure there are many other articles on Wikipedia which reference Time magazine in a similar way (e.g. Person or the year, etc.) Respectfully, -RockyRaccoon 22:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith

I am distressed that you've repeatedly referred to my edits as vandalism & have referred to my redirect as page deletion. Both you and I want to improve WP. I personally find the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle a very natural way to collaborate. I realize that it is different from your personal preference (which seems to be to discuss and then edit), but I don't think that my process is unusual or disruptive. I'd really appreciate it if you:

  • Didn't take my edits as some kind of personal attack
  • Would stop assuming that they are harmful.

--Karnesky 04:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC) I apologize for referring to them as vandalism. I should not have said that even in user space. I suppose I was over-reacting to the speed and the number. which does make it a little hard to revert if it ends up being reverted. I'm sorry if this started us out on a bad footing, and please forgive me. DGG 04:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All is forgiven. Thanks again. --16:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
And re. reverting: I tend to work in bite-size chunks not only to "commit early/commit often," but also because some extension on my browser seems to like to cut the tail off long articles. I think it will be easy enough to revert some or all of my changes if other people think they should & will revert them myself if no one else can. --Karnesky 17:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Colon classification
Research library
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Russian State Library
PLoS Medicine
Evolution (journal)
PLoS Biology
Private library
Scopus
On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection
Distributed library
Relief print
Journal of the American Chemical Society
List of journals available free online
Cell theory
Social Science Research Network
Spermatozoon
Cleanup
John Louis DiGaetani
Neuroscience
Sydney Brenner
Merge
ProQuest
Religiopoiesis
Statistical thermodynamics
Add Sources
American Memory
Telavi
Nucleic acid
Wikify
Processed Book Project
The Journal of Vaishnava Studies
Enterprise content management
Expand
The Journal of Negro History
List of British entomological publishers
History of copyright law

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 05:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi DGG -- You posted this on my talk page at the end of my list of suggestions from SuggestBot: Thanks. I expected closer matches, but an interesting experiment.DGG 02:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Might you have meant to put this on either your own page or SuggestBot's page? It appears you also edited down the list of articles I was provided. Please let me know ... and then I think I can just revert your changes. I just want to be sure there isn't some insight I'm missing here. Thanks! Keesiewonder 10:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries! A little revert on my talk page worked nicely. Thanks for letting me know. Keesiewonder 00:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this feedback! Please remind me of what you saw, though. I've posted a fair amount lately and have lost track. What I'm thinking of is a neutral vote I made somewhere. Thanks, and sorry for my amnesia ... Keesiewonder 12:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I received today,

Dear David, Thank you for your message. I was born in 1955. Best wishes, John Brookfield I already put it into the article.

  • Thanks for taking care of that. Maybe just hold on to a copy of the email correspondence in case there is an uprising. Or a note on the talk page for the article regarding how the information was obtained. Keesiewonder 10:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Viejo High School

Please see my comment to you in the AfD. JoshuaZ 02:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_5#E-Sword

Because you participated in the AfD, I thought I should inform you of the deletion review. --Karnesky 17:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey a Librarian

I really appreciated you posting on the David Burt deletion talk page ... I want my students to graduate as wikipedians, be they more or less active, and I could use some help steering them into the skills or the style of wikipedia. up to and including, a short dialogue with my class, if you're up for that. we're in chicago but we can make distance work. or are there wikipedian-librarians local to us you can hook me up with? that'd be great too. thanks. and anyone else can answer that question too. Katewill 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

This is E121 and I am working an a page/scholar that I came to know. Please stop deleting/editing (if that's you are supposed to do) until I have finsihed the page.. I will really appreciate your co-operation. Any/all suggestion is welcome.

ELAC welcome

Hi, thanks for joining the WP:Extra-Long Article Committee. Short on time today; you will usually see me doing most of my wiki-work Mon-Wed (and sometimes on Sat and Sun), approximately. I suggest that we draw up an ELAC constitution or charter (i.e. guidelines) that we all can agree on. An example might include giving pages ample notice, in terms of weeks, as to when a particular page is scheduled for committee involvement. More ideas on this later, talk soon: --Sadi Carnot 05:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Robin Hood

I see your point, and it is a good one. Feel free to delete it, but I still don't know why you or anyone else would care if there is an article out there on wikipedia that only a few people look at. I am new to wikipedia, so I did not know about the construction tag, so thank you. Also, as you may have noticed and that I did not realize until now, the newcomb link goes to the Newcomb family. However, I was refering to a sport that I played at Camp Robin Hood. The Junior Campers play it (Archer/Bow/11 year olds and younger); it is like volleyball but you can catch the volleyball so young kids can play. You can only have three people hold the ball on each side, and when you're nine years old, it's can be tricky to get the ball over the net and/or catch it, so the game is fun. Anyways, I hope you don't delete the article, but if for some reason you or somebody else feels it must be deleted, go ahead. Oh, and if you can, plese tell me in advance if you are going to delete it. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rggwiki (talk • contribs) 06:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you from Rggwiki

Thank you for informing of so much about WP that I would have never found out for a very long time! I thought about the article about Camp Robin Hood, and I decided to add the prod to it. In case you are wondering, I still go to the camp, and my cousin is a counselor. Also, I know John Klein from various things, and that is how I got to go to camp ever since I was 9. Anyways, I think I am going to take your advice and write an article about newcomb. Once again, thank you for your tremendous help! Rggwiki 03:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woodblock printing

Re: your comments on Woodblock printing: ""an instrument for printing texts and pictures ... with 14 stones for printing" which is probably too early to be a Gutenberg-type printing press in that location.[1] "

I don't know anything about this case in particular, but from the context, I would imagine that the "stones" referred to are printing blocks - i.e. with letters or characters carved into them - and not weights. LordAmeth 10:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LA, That was my quote originally. I considered blocks, & it is possible, but from my not very good Latin "lapideis" should definitely mean "stones" (as in lapidiary etc) & neither stone nor even clay blocks seem ever to have been used in Europe. It isn't translated it in my source unfortunately, perhaps from the same uncertainty - nor does he comment on what it might be. Do you know anyone with good medieval Latin? As I think I may have said in the talk page, at the moment I suspect weights is right, although screws were very familiar technology.
PS your Japanese "printing-press"es had the fur flying at History of typography in East Asia yesterday. There they are now "printing-equipment"!

Johnbod 13:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's really funny. I love stirring up discussion (but not necessarily argument). That said, the equipment used for printing in Japan, especially after 1765, can surely be classified as a press, no? Just because it doesn't use moveable type doesn't mean that it doesn't employ a complex mechanism to ensure consistent pressure and precise alignment of block to page... LordAmeth 14:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I argued on the talk page, but "press" is a sensitive word in this context. Pending finding out what they looked like, we're at "printing equipment" there now. Sorry to talk across your page, DGG! Johnbod 01:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't in the least mind seeing everything close at hand (smile) but I suggest you copy this discussion onto the talk page(s) for the article(s), as there's been quite of lot of discussion, and people who look at the article talk will get even more confused it there isnt a continuous sequence (for a comment about 2 pages, I dont know what the custom is, but I'd suggest copying it on each. Clarity is more important than disk space.)DGG 01:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Somar

Nature journal categories mistake

Thanks for the feedback. I always appreciate knowing when I've missed the mark. I will go back through them and make sure I've undone my errors. I've been working on the underpopulated categories list, and I'm learning a lot as I go. I do appreciate your offer of assistance, and will take you up on that. Kind regards CRKingston 01:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the kind words; most of my talk page is taken up with people saying, "How dare you delete MY article!"  :-) I try to delete only things that I think will clearly pass AFD; despite that, I would say my record at AFD is no better than 75-80%, but that is chiefly due to articles being improved during the process. I appreciate the support, of course, although I don't "astroturf" my AFDs - if they don't survive a random assortment of opinions, they don't. --Brianyoumans 02:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilal Khashan

Your comments are nonsense on three counts. First, the discussion was about the article as it stood when I removed what looked like a wholesale CV dump, not about the book citations. Second, the phone book provision is clearly not applicable for resumes, as resumes require a considerable creative input from the author in deciding what to include and how to present it. They're also generally considered as copyrightable which you can glean from the copyright provisions of any job search site like monster.com. That doesn't prevent you from compiling a book list for an author but it puts copy-and-paste jobs outside of fair use. ~ trialsanderrors 21:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right in certain cases. One cannot copy a whole resume. Just as you say, a resume shows creativity. And I am right in other cases. Factual lists involving compilation only, however compiled, can not be copyright in the US. And sometimes it seems open to question, such as copying such a list from a work which is copyright as a whole. But a list of articles is only a small part of a resume, and it is certainly a small part of a journal article (which is where I think it may be from: I have examined his online resume, & it does not give or link to a full list of publications. Examining the page history, the books were added individually -- more on that later).
So we fall back on the US general fair use provisions which apply to everything: 1/Nature of the material: serious non-fiction 2/Purpose of use: non-profit. 3/extent of use--that list is not on his resume, but if it were, it is an unsubstantial part. If it's from a bibliography in a publication, even less substantial. 4/ effect on the market for the copyrighted work: none in any case. 4/4.
As for side issues, Copyright violations is equally wrong if done by semi-automated cut and paste,or if transcribed by hand with a quill. Doesn't matter here, as it isn't a violation.
As for a database, copying a database record giving one author's small number of books listings, is not copyright violation in the US, though it is in some other countries. Preparing a bibliography for all the biographical articles in WP this way would be another matter. But he didn't even copy: those insertions are just links, which is always legit in the US, unless used to deceive.
As I said, go learn some copyright law. A summary is at General information about copyright, and you can follow the links for the details, and read the legislative history and the pertinent court decisions, as I have. (I'm not a lawyer, though.)DGG 00:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a Ph.D. in business, and much (or at least a decent fraction) of my work concerns the economics of intellectual property, so your repeated admonishment comes across as somewhat patronizing. As I posted in the AfD discussion, the article at the time when I blanked the CV part was 10% context, 90% presumable copy-and-paste, which is clearly outside of fair use, and more so, outside of WP:FU which themselves are an (appropriately) conservative reading of fair use. I have no problems with bsnowball putting the book cites back in, although I would prefer that someone who is interested in keeping the article actually creates an acceptable encyclopedic context. But the 90%/10% mix I removed was clearly outside of WP:FU and fails your criterion 3 (§ 107 (3)). The articles were also not added individually: [2], so I stand by my decision that absent attribution removal as potential copyvio is perfectly defensible. ~ trialsanderrors 01:10, 12 December 2006

Dear fellow editor, I gave the analysis and the link primarily for the benefit of others who may have been following this discussion, and I did not mean to imply otherwise. I remind them that it is not necessary to fulfill all four criteria. Unlike some such rules in WP, this rule is interpreted by the courts as a balancing test. 3/4 is quite sufficient, and where the lawyers usually get into it is 2/4. But I'm not a lawyer, and in general I do not like ruling on content in an arbitrary or numerical way. As they are currently being interpreted, there's a very narrow space between copyvio and OR/V, and most WP articles would fail. DGG 01:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of holy cities

I responded to your comment and expect feedback. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio libraries merger upcoming...

Hello, this is a stock message addressed to some active participants in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adams County Public Library. The debate is closed and the result was merge all to their respective locales. You are invited to help with carrying out the mergers; please see the instructions in the AfD closing note. Sandstein 21:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YOU ROCK!!!

Thank you for helping out a newbie... I really appreciate your editing my Whip Jones article. Your advice on the Edison Pioneers I have a request in with the Henry Ford Museum to help me get the complete list of Edison Pioneers. You Rock! Can you help with a KEEP comment in the AfD for Whip Jones?

66.82.9.55 07:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Bruce Jones[reply]
People can only vote once & I already voted keep. But the other people can change their votes. Suggestion 1) copy that request onto the talk page of the E.P. article. 2)Sign up, get a real user page, and say something about yourself. Especially since you said who you were in one of the AfD discussions & enable Email. Looks more straightforward. DGG 07:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This computer won't let me use my user id, firewall. But, I get your point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.55 (talk) 07:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, I see it's used by others at your school, and there is another problem--if too much junk is added through it, the url gets blocked--try using a purely numerical ID that doesn't look like a url,

some filters may let that through--if so, you can change your preferences so your real name appears as a signature. Otherwise, i see you added yoer name at the end of a posting, which will help.DGG 21:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you again, the user id I am using is: -BMcCJ come visit to see my page.
still trying to get my Whip Jones article passed Arthur Rubin
Does RE-EXAMINE mean KEEP??? - BMcCJ
So Frustrating...

White Krane

Wow! Look at : Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Snle . His edits seemed highly harmless to me.

I will move the Asian pp talk now

Johnbod 01:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MUGEN

Hi, thanks for your message and your support. I have created a new page regarding MUGEN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUGEN_Mutant_Mice_Database, please check it, your comments are more than welcome. Regards Afantitis

WP:LOMJ

Hi, in regards to your interest in creating articles for journals, we are already working towards that goal over at Wikipedia:List of missing journals and WP:LOMJ/Queue. In light of your su

The category sggestion on Template talk:Infobox_Journal to "reward" the true OA journals, I would like to create a WP:LOMJ/OA that lists everything in DOAJ, in order that we can create articles for those first. It looks easy to screen scrape the DOAJ listings, but if there is another way to access their db, that would be better. John Vandenberg 20:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

initial decisions

There are basically 2 ways of doing this. big, and small.

  • You (and the other editors doing it) have obviously chosen big. Between your list and DOAJ, I estimate there will be 13,000 titles.--that is currently published titles--if you add the changed and ceased titles, it will more than double. Harvard gets about 100,000 current journals.
  • I like to start small.

In my view, it would be a much more useful thing to make good articles with accurate information for important journals, OA or not, than doing all the journals major and minor. Among the significant ones I would start with OA ones, which is what I suggested.

  • There are now several information sources t hat were not there six months ago. One is CrossRef[3] I just updated that article yesterday. Another is ISI, which has an openly available master journal list. [4] There is also the journal list in PubMed [5] which gives the following
  1. Title: Comptes rendus biologies

$ISSN: 1631-0691 (Print)

  1. Title Abbreviation: C R Biol
  2. ISO Abbreviation: C. R. Biol.
  3. Publication Start Year: 2002
  4. Publisher: Elsevier
  5. Continuation Notes: Continues: Comptes rendus de l'Académie des sciences. Série III, Sciences de la vie.
  6. Language: English, French
  7. Country: France
  8. Subject Term(s): Biology
  9. NLM ID: 101140040
  • We obvious have slightly different things in mind, but it would make sense to merge the project ideas. With a project, it could, like most large projects, have several tracks.
    • Do you have a project name? I could not find one in the project list yesterday. but maybe I missed. it. It would make more sense to use an existing setup.
    • What I would propose starting with on one track, is to take that OA category, and make sure that all of other OA journals that have articles in WP are listed in it. and see that they are also in the list of OA journals. We need the list and the category because most of the titles will be in the list for a very long times. .as of Dec 15 there are 3200 journals in DOAJ. I frankly do not see a point of making a list of all of them, however minor--DOAJ does it fine (or more exactly, reasonable well). WP is not a list of links or a web directory, or so Im told. Google does very well in finding scientific journal titles.
  • What I most want to avoid is duplicate work.
    • Before writing any more journal pages, I suggest we continue the discussion of the journal infobox -- where was that beng discussed--I already lost track. :)

(see my user page for some idea of my background. I think some of the people doing this have similar? I know it doesn't matter in terms of whose word goes, but I will do what I can to help with what I know. I've already started in on Comptes rendus. DGG 22:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:LOMJ was intended to be a list where each entry is crossed off, however DOAJ, WorldCat and other lists will always far exceed what we can achieve here at Wikipedia, at least in my lifetime, so I started the WP:LOMJ/Queue to bring some order and discussion to the process of prioritising which articles should be created. As you may have seen I have created a new list WP:LOMJ/DOAJ so we can see which open access journals already have articles created, so that we can add or augment an infobox on the article. This list currently contains false positives, because the journal name may already be used as a general topic name, but I intend to improve my scripts to fix that. I'll also take on board your suggestion of finding these articles and making sure they are in the OA category. I'll continue to automate this script with any suggestions people have.

btw, thanks for pointing me towards [6]; I've been looking for such a raw data dump for about a month now! John Vandenberg 23:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Halakha

Please can you counter my points in the deletion entry of this article so the case can be closed for now. My point ran along the lines - there are no variations of Halacha (lit:the way), whilst non orthodox streams essentially compromise the steadfastness belief in GD, Torah and the leadership of gedolim, they do not subscribe to Halacha and therefor do not seek to create their own variation of it. The only issue Conservative Halakha confronts is its internal problem of accepting Gay Rabbis. If we have Conservative Halakha, articles like Conservative God would have to be created too. Hope you understand. Thanks frummer 07:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Done, though you will not like what I said. But I at least have the advantage of some of the participants of actually having read Conservative (and Reform) Halakah in the form of Responsa. I look forward to years of discussion on more specific topics. DGG 23:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Bib

I think your assumption that OttoBib is only reference management software is incorrect. It actually looks-up the ISBN number in several databases, where RMS requires the user to enter the data, and just stores it. It's function is similar to ISBNdb.com, so I think they should both be together, or they should both be removed from Bibliographic Database. Dhaluza 04:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just answered on your talk page.DGG 05:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did some testing with books I was using and had no trouble, In fact it worked much better with obscure titles than World Cat and the LOC! For example see this permalink: http://www.ottobib.com/45152. So I was very impressed. BTW I have no connection with the developer, I just found this by chance, and was very surprised it was not better covered on WP. I see now that it was deleted once before. I did add 3 other external sources to the article--not the most reliable (blogs), but independent. Appreciate the advice, but still feel strongly that this is a significant and useful tool. It seems to do the same thing as ISBNdb.com, except the output is formatted as a citation. So I still don't understand the distinction regarding BD. Dhaluza 19 December 2006
P.S. I did some further testing on OttoBib and generated a more detailed biblio for another article without problems. See: http://www.ottobib.com/45335 Dhaluza 23:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ottobib was removed from reference management because someone else also thinks it does not belong there either. I would like to put it back with ISBNdb.com on Bibliographic database. If you still object, let me know why. Thanks. Dhaluza 02:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about a section titled Bibliographic Metasearch, I think this is more descriptive and also more inclusive. I think ISBNdb.com, Delicious Library, OttoBib, and mybibpro would fit there.Dhaluza 15:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you care...

You said "the start flying" rather than "they start flying". Fix it if it pleases you. Cheers, Tomertalk 06:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Tomertalk 07:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk :Etching - support invited for proposal

Hi!, Your support is invited at Talk:Etching to reverse a new and unneccessary disambiguation page that has appeared without consultation. Thanks & enjoy the holidays! Johnbod 23:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wat Tyler

My wife's g-g-g-g-g-grandfather...

see also:

Wat Tyler Cluverius II (Admiral)
Wat Tyler Cluverius IV (Ambassador)

And you?

It may be a few more g's but yes, I can
no, there real, not jokes.

BMcCJ

Extent of biographical depth

I still think a good bio should always mention parents, siblings, and children. Mentioning the names, for me, is de riguer, but details beyond that may of less interest to most readers. To me, its what is verifiable, and that is dependent on whether someone took an interest in writing a biography in the past. If I am interested in an obscure person, I want to know everything about them, but that information may not be available because no one took the time to record the information, when it was available. In the past that was dependent on the marketability of the information collected since it was so expensive to publish. Now its cheaper to record more information on minor people. So how are your biographies going? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Master of the Playing Cards

Hi, I started him off with a two-line stub because I have seen officious bots going round de-linking redlinks, and there are several to him which it would be a pity to lose. I'm not planning to do more at present, assuming you are still interested in doing him some time. Happy Holidays! Johnbod 23:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I uploaded the DVD-Printings to commons, hope you can use one, see commons:Meister der Spielkarten, and am not sure about the english namens, so feel free to correct me. I also created commons:Category:Giant Bible of Mainz. Happy New Year! -- Cherubino 15:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two-way transwiki-ing

I've linked the Wikipedia and Wiktionary entries on "cock tease" to each other. Also, the Wiktionary entry had nothing for the metaphorical usage. Hoping you and Jokestress won't object, I've added that usage, citing both of your examples and references. – SAJordan talkcontribs 03:03, 25 Dec 2006 (UTC).

UPDATE: Even the original AfD nominator has changed his vote to Keep. Take a bow. – SAJordan talkcontribs 19:04, 25 Dec 2006 (UTC).

List of people who became famous through being terminally ill

Hi, I saw you deprodded this article. I stil think this article doesn't belong on wikipedia (IMHO of course) so I put it up on afd here. Thought i'd let you know. Garion96 (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Hello,

Did you change your signature formatting recently? I notice it now links to German Geophysical Society (DGG), not to your user page, User:DGG. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 00:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to go to Special:Preferences and make sure that in the "Signature:" box you have User:DGG instead of DGG. Your signatures before 22 December or so don't have this problem, so I suspect you changed your signature only a week or so ago to get it bold, and accidentally replaced User:DGG with plain old DGG at the same time. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 18:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Checking now DGG 08:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could use some help defending religious template

A recent VfD request by antiMessianic editors: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Messianic Judaism. I'd value your input and any rallying of friends for the cause that you can find. Thanks! inigmatus 19:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Hind was invoked but never defined (see the help page).