User talk:Jhfortier/Archive 1

Archive 1

DYK for E. (Mrs.) v. Eve

Updated DYK query On December 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article E. (Mrs.) v. Eve, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


Loose ends

Fort, I'm cleaning up before the holidays! I noticed that there were some loose ends that I needed to address, so there are some messages to you on my talk page, and on Talk:History of Sesame Street. Thanks, and hope that you have a nice weekend. --Christine (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: GA Nominees

I replied on my talk; but again, sorry for the mix up :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sesame Workshop

Hi J, I had some extra time this morning, so I was able to look at this article's lead. The length is a little over 25,000 characters. According to this the lead should be two paragraphs. Currently, the lead is one paragraph, so yah, I agree that you should bulk it up a bit. It doesn't mention Sesame Street or some of the key players mentioned; perhaps you can include that information. If you do that, I'll be more than happy to remove the offensive tag for you. ;) --Christine (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I've been thinking about this article, and I'm still having issues with the lead, even though you expanded it. It still doesn't adequately summarize the article. For example, there are full sections on how Cooney recruited her staff for Sesame Street, but nothing about it in the lead. After thinking about it for about a day, though, I've come to the conclusion that my issues with this article run deeper than just the lead. I'm not sure that a lot of its content belongs in this article. The recruitment push, for example, may be better suited to the mother article or to History of Sesame Street, and as the latter article's main editor, I'm not sure I'd include some of it there. (Well, I know I wouldn't, 'cause I didn't, and I won't.) Some of the content belongs in the individual bios, like the ancedote about Cooney thinking Henson was a terrorist.
This article tells me nothing about the SW and its history and development. It needs to go beyoung a few cutsey stories about The Show. There's nothing there about Electric Company, or about their history of funding difficulties. Why did they need to found CTW to create a TV show? If this article was actually about its subject material, the lead would be improved, and the reference tag could be removed as well. I think that you just need to do some research. I highly recommend Street Gang (book) by Michael Davis (great book!) and A Celebration, but I suspect you already know about those books. --Christine (talk) 05:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi! I was wondering if you would please peer review the article "Protein Allergy." I posted the peer review on the article talk page. I completed it for a class project and would greatly appreciate your opinions!Clarker1 (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Protein Allergy

The article Protein Allergy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Moved article to Protein allergy to conform to naming requirements. Requesting deletion of Protein Allergy. No pages linked to it, so no links would be disrupted.

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jhfortier (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Protein Allergy

Hi, I'm the instructor of the course for which this article is a project. I realize that you're trying to help the students; it would be a better learning process for them if you explained why you are doing what you are doing. Will you do that? Not just in the edit summary but in a post on the talk page-- have a conversation with them. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for contacting me. If you examine the article talkpage, I left a number of suggestions under the heading peer review (a peer review which your student solicited from me). I gave quite a lengthy peer review, including reasons why certain sections needed to be removed (i.e. their irrelevance to the article at hand, and redundancy given the existence of dedicated articles to such complex topics as protein folding) and left it up to the student to make those changes. Some of the changes (e.g. use of "main article" links and the like) were implemented, but the most important ones related to removal of redundant content were not. I think my peer review was fair, and offered to both assist in the edits and engage in constructive dialogue/ongoing peer reviews if they so desired. Five days later, upon seeing the GA nomination and no major changes, I decided to just make the changes.
The issue is that there is an incredible backlog of GA nominations, and a limited number of editors willing to do these reviews; adding an article to the GA nom list when it is obviously not ready (as another user pointed out on Clarker1's talk page) diverts editorial resources away from articles which have a reasonable chance of passing a GA review.
I noticed on your talk page that some of the original authors of the page are asking for a revert, to re-introduce the old sections. If they have a legitimate reason for this, that's great and I would be more than happy to engage in dialogue about it on the article's talk page. However (and I do apologize, because I hate using Wiki policy like this), I think it's important that you explain to the students that even though they may start an article and contribute heavily to it, they don't own that article and any editor is free to make changes to that article where appropriate. I hope that everyone can come to a amenable consensus about this article, because it is on an important topic, but I do suggest that the nominator for GA status withdraw the nomination. I'd be more than happy to engage in any further discussion about article content on the article's talk page, so that there can be a community consensus. Again, thank you so much for contacting me, I look forward to working in collaboration with you and/or your students to improve this article as much as possible. Jhfortier (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thanks for contacting me. They do understand about ownership issues, and that isn't their problem. I think, but am not sure, it's two issues. The first is that they don't fully understand why you are suggesting what you are, and the second is an issue of their grade. I'll encourage them to collaborate with you on this. I actually liked some of the sections that you removed, because they were more concise explanations of protein construction, etc., than the main article. For a lot of people, the main article is too much information, and I thought they had just about the right amount. I'm not planning to revert anything. I can go to an old revision and read what they had, but I've pretty much figured out a grade for them anyway. and I'll encourage them to collaborate with you. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello again. I've posted a more in-depth explanation about the removal of sections (including one theoretical and one on-Wiki example) on the talk page, and hopefully your students are amenable to collaborating on this article. I most certainly understand concerns about grades!! In the context of a project (equivalent, I assume, to an essay) many of the sections and ideas that they had were interesting and would definitely be found in any academic paper I wrote. Links in Wiki, however, make it less important to go into lengthy explanations. I did suggest ways in which the students could use information they seem fond of (e.g. structural information) in a way that is relevant, such as explaining how certain protein structures interact with cellular components of the immune system to cause allergic reactions. I'm sure that all parties are amenable to consensus, so the article will only get better over the next few weeks and months. Thank you Jhfortier (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thanks for taking the time and effort to work through these issues with them. I've encouraged them to collaborate with you on this, and there was another reviewer also who added to the page. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Allergies Proteins and consensus

I've tried to show them where/how to add material, or describe material that relates allergies to proteins. We'll see. I have no issue with the material on proteins, it just needs to inform me of the relationship between proteins and allergies. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your guidance; it must be very busy work helping so many people discover the possibilities that Wiki offers. I'll admit I'm feeling a bit frustrated, as I'm not really sensing any compromise from the other editors, but I'm sure it will all work out in the end...Jhfortier (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Reviews

Hello, Jhfortier. As I explained at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Reconsidering, this morning's misunderstanding about the GA review of Protein allergy was likely due to the fact you didn't follow the instructions at WP:GAC. Such things happen, but remember that each step is an important one when reviewing articles, or else mistakes can happen further down the line. When you decide to review a specific article, place the tag #:{{GAReview}} ~~~~ below the nominee's listing. Then, follow the link in the GA nominee template on the article's talk page to begin a review subpage. You should not begin a review as a separate section on the talk page; the review will be transcluded by a bot, so you don't have to worry about linking to it yourself. I hope this helps, María (habla conmigo) 16:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh my, so sorry for the misunderstanding on my part, then! Your involvement as a peer reviewer makes perfect sense, and I apologize for jumping to conclusions -- of which I'm guessing several others are similarly guilty? :) I agree that you shouldn't be the one to withdraw the nom, but seeing as how you've made your case known on the talk page, perhaps things will be a little easier, communication-wise. My apologies again, and take care, María (habla conmigo) 19:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no apology necessary on your part; given the information you had, your reaction is/was completely understandable! There is, for some reason, a BIG push toward getting this article GA status, one which I don't exactly understand as it's quite new and still needs a great deal of work. Hopefully it will all get ironed out soon. Thank you again. Jhfortier (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review of Protein Allergy

Glad to hear the review was useful - I always try to get at least two editors input on any articles I sent to PR, so I understand completely. Thanks for the note, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Mushrooms and antioxidants

Well antioxidant properties can be found in a petri dish the real question is do antioxidants have a possitive benefit on health. Vit E leads to increased cancer in smokers. B complex has been found to have harmful effects. Vit C does not do much. This is all from large human trials.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree on all points; determining the positive or negative effects of all sorts of isolates is difficult, and it seems like every week there's a new study telling us what we know is wrong! People would be so much healthier if they just ate their vegetables, exercised like they know they're meant to, and took care of themselves. I see you're working on medicinal mushrooms now, I'll perhaps give it a go tomorrow to avoid edit conflicts! Jhfortier (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

peer review Jordan River (Utah)

Jhfortier, could you copy edit/peer review an article for me. I'm horrible at writing... there is a reason I'm in computers and math. I'd like to take the article to FA, but after the last ego destroying FA review, I better get some copy edits. I've already taken it to a peer review and GA review, but the GA reviewer suggested a copy edit. Anything you can help out with to improve the article would be appreciated. According to the volunteers page you write in Canadian English. Well, the article doesn't have any "ehs" or "toques", so could review the article in American as God intended. :) Bgwhite (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!!!!

Thank you very much for the review of the Jordan River. It really means alot seeing how writing challenged I am. I definitely will bother you again Bgwhite (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea, FA is brutal, especially if the article is just not right or you are not one of the "special" ones. This time it's not to bad, however nobody is reading the article, which is very common. Featured List is much nicer to go through... They seem to read articles and give really good comments. I knew Jordan River wouldn't pass going in because articles like mine don't get a good look until the 2nd time through. Bgwhite (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the nice comments. I try to stay out of politics too... There are some articles I'd like to work on, but don't want to touch with a ten-foot pole because of politics. The last time I went through FA, the article came out much better than when it went in, but I didn't have it copy-edited before hand. Thanks to you, the Jordan River article is miles ahead of the last article. I'll be bugging you again in 3-4 weeks on another article I've been working on. Bgwhite (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Medicinal mushroom article

I see you noticed the atlas study with my name. Truth is, at one point I worked at the mushroom company producing that particular form of agaricus. However the job was only a temp job (I also do not work there currently). My motivation for the article was

1. The topic is extremely important. (for example, Medicinal Mushrooms: Their Therapeutic Properties and Current Medical Usage with Special Emphasis on Cancer Treatments Cancer Research UK, 2001) 2. I was upset the company I used to work for (and I am sure many others) do not tell customers about other mushrooms and research that has been done with them. 3. It is a fact, that many more drugs are waiting to be derived from natural substances. 4. It is a fact, diet can have major implications for one's health.

I have not worked for that company for some time and am still quite passionate about the topic. Being completely new to Wikipedia I did not think there would be a problem (in fact I thought it was better) if I could include primary research along with published reviews. Certain editors have been upset about this. If I could write the paper from scratch again I would have never included primaries. However, considering it does not go against Wiki policy, and that many reviews present the exact same data, I do not feel I have to remove them all. The page is a work in progress and if other people want to rework the information that is fine. Thanks for your interest and contributions to the page. Jatlas (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote. I look forward to re-working and balancing the viewpoints with you. So far, you have made some great edits instead of simply pointing out problems! :) Unfortunately, since it was so difficult making any progress on the page's discussion page, I am currently taking a break from it. Write me back if you have any questions or concerns about the page. Jatlas (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize Jhfortier. I will not leave stupid comments on the edit page anymore. Just a bit stressful with all the edits on the page. Keep up the good work. Jatlas (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Nice to see we are both active on the site at the moment :) No need to warn me about getting banned. I realize the page is a community page and not my property. However, Doc James is making me shy away from the discussion page. He has used phrases like "snake oil", "conspiracy" when talking about the article. He has also said on the talk page there is 0 clinical research in the article when there is, which is bordering on harassment, IMO. He also wants to cut down the article by using word play, i.e. "if its not a mushroom in pure form it can't be on this page". I am more than happy to work with you as well as the other editors. Doc James however is WAY too biased against this article to work with. BTW I also have a "biomedical" background, with a bachelors in pharmacology from UCSB.Jatlas (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jhfortier. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Peer review/Barbara Kingsolver/archive1.
Message added 04:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Mikemoral♪♫ 04:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A request

Hello, you don't know me, but I suppose it's time you start :) I noticed you are a peer review volunteer AND in good ol' Canadian English. I recently rewrote Highway 401 in its entirety and am interested in taking it to Featured Article Candidates soon. My grammar is atrocious, so if you are willing and could take a look over it, it would be most excellent.

Thanks, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Floydian, thanks for your note! I'd be more than happy to give the good ol' 401 a peer review! A note up front; I've only done 1 peer review for an article going up for FA, so I'm not the most experienced reviewer. That said, I'll do my absolute best to help get it into shape. I can start in the next couple of days (I'm currently working to get an article to GA and that is eating up quite a bit of my wiki time). Glad to be working with you! Jhfortier (talk · contribs ) 16:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Awesome and thank you ahead of time. I doubt having (or not) prepared articles for FA will have an impact, it's more the ability to correct my terrible sentence structures :p Take your time of course. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jhfortier. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Peer review/Barbara Kingsolver/archive1.
Message added 21:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BelovedFreak 21:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A new toy for us to play with

So my mom's an editor. When I mentioned that I was working on Barbara Kingsolver, she was like "Oh, wow! My very first manuscript was for a book about her!" A few minutes later, she handed this to me:

  • DeMarr, Mary Jean (1999). Barbara Kingsolver: A Critical Companion. Greenwood Publishing. ISBN 0-313-30638-9.

Chapter 2 is titled "Politics and Genres". It has a detailed discussion of The Bean Trees, Animal Dreams, Pigs in Heaven, and The Poisonwood Bible, including a Themes section for each. Yay. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh no way! That's amazing! I absolutely adore Barbara Kingsolver, and she's one of those authors that I think keeps a very low profile, but if you mention her to someone, they'll say "Oh man, one of her books is my absolute favourite!" Kind of a sleeper hit as far as writers go. That will be a fantastic reference, and I'll definitely try to track down a copy from my library (for this article and for personal reading). Jhfortier (talk · contribs ) 04:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Barbara Kingsolver

Hi Jhfortier, Apologies for treading on your toes with the article and not being specific enough about edit notes. I didn't see that it was in the middle of a peer review. I did look on the talk page for recent activity or discussion - didn't see any ... my mistake. I know it can be very frustrating if one's careful edits are messed with and it's not clear what's been done. Good luck with the review. Spanglej (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm still fairly new to the WP community and learn something major every week. So - accurate, clear edit notes are my lesson for the new week. I love Barbara Kingsolver and am happy to input where I can that's useful - though I have no biography to hand. The article is looking good. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

Just a quick note. Often vandals will make a couple edits in a row. If you only revert one vandalism others may remain as it did here [1] BTW if you are not using Twinkle under my preferences you definitely should. It makes dealing with vandalism a lot easier. Cheers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Normally I'm pretty good at picking up on multi-edit vandals, but I dropped the ball there! I started using Twinkle a little while ago, and it's been amazing, especially automating the warnings. Jhfortier (Talk · contribs ) 00:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_Nadu_Newsprint_and_Papers

Request to our Wikipedians,
I'm very happy that my First Article has achieved B-Class on the very first day. After our fellow wikipedians comments, i have worked a lot to Improve my article. I have added a Lot to the article - Images,logos,Geographical Co-ordinates,Charts, Block Diagrams, Tables, National Stock Exchange Details, Criticism for Neutrality of the Article, Many Government web sources for proven references, etc. I have put all my effort to make it achieve Good Article Status. Now, I kindly request you to review My Article & provide your valuable feedback.
Raj6644 (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hi, I was wondering if you could use your copyedit powers on the article. Thanks :) d'oh! talk 08:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for copy-editing

Hello, I wonder if you would mind taking a look at this page, PlayStation, and copy-edit it? Your help would be greatly appreciated, thanks.KiasuKiasiMan 16:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Help regarding Copy Editing...

Hello, i want your help regarding the copy editing, general fixes and grammatical mistakes in the following articles related to Meteorology.

Waiting for your reply. Regards...


Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

I noticed on the peer review volunteers list that you were interested in genetics and medicine. I recently did a major upgrade to the Genome-wide association study article. I put up a peer review request. Perhaps you'd like to help with that? --LasseFolkersen (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks --LasseFolkersen (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Transitional Fossil peer-review

It is a very important subject, and I wish to take it to GA/FA status in the future. Your input would be valued --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Requesting a Peer Review

Hi Jhfortier:

I noticed that you volunteer to do Canadian peer reviews/copyediting. I was wondering if I could get your feedback on the Alexa McDonough article. I've listed this article for peer review because the article is stable, seems to be stuck at B-level, and I would like to get it to at least a Good-level article, in preparation for a Feature-level article. Looking for comments on tone, style, and anything else that needs fixing. Thanks, Abebenjoe (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)