You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on David S. Painter, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Grammarxxx(What'd I do this time?)23:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Please give me a bit more time. I believe I can make a good case. People like Melvyn Leffler have their own page, Painter has published books with him and one of Painter's studies has been continuously in print for more than 25 years!! LudicrousTripe (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Status and Advice
As reviewing administrator, I did not delete the article. It's enough of an indication of importance, and it was even at the time it was nominated. But to show actual notability, it must meet at least one of the standards WP:PROFWP:AUTHOR. or WP:GNG.
For WP:PROF, you need to show something besides the books, such as an award or distinction or multiple other publications. I see he is an associate professor--this is not the same thing as a Full Professor, and it is not automatic that Associate Professors are considered to meet WP:PROF, although it is certainly possible. What will be most helpful is citation figures for the books and the articles--either Web of Knowledge, or Google Scholar. For WP:AUTHOR , for each of the 2 books you need to show substantial reviews in 3rd party independent reliable sources, but not press releases. Don't just assert it's a classic; you need evidence to show it--either someone saying so in a reliable source, or enough evidence to make it obvious. One such evidence is the number of library holdings in WorldCat. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thank you for giving me a bit more time. I will attempt to do as you say. If you do not feel I am succeeding, of course re-nominate it for deletion. LudicrousTripe (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
April 2013
Your addition to History of computing hardware has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
I had to check you out too because of recent edits which turned out OK. And it really was just cause of the name which sounds like something a WP:Vandal or WP:Sockpuppet would pick. It may have seemed funny at the time but now...
Best way to deal with it is to create your user page, put an explanation on, put in a few general factoids about yourself in text or using Wikipedia:Userboxes and then people won't assume the worst when you make a mistake. Good luck! CarolMooreDC🗽 20:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I reverted you was because I misunderstood what you did. Frankly, putting in a comment about Branson's response in a reference is unusual. Thus, I assumed, looking only at the diff, that you had put the phrase "Branson responded to the criticism" in the body. Anyway, I'm not keen on the reference within a reference, but it doesn't bother me enough to do anything about it. If no one else objects, it will remain.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I agree that it is so trivial; similarly whatever happens now I'm not going to undo it, adjust it, or whatever. I don't know anything about Branson or Virgin; I just happened on the original article, then figured I'd add his response to it for balance. Best etc. LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GENERAL THEORY
Please review WP:BRD. After text has been reverted please seek consensus on talk before reinserting it. The word "suprisingly" is not used in the source nor is it equivalent to the quotation provided. Hayek is one of thousands of economists who did not publish a review of the book. Please undo your reinsertion and state your concerns on talk so that a consensus of the editors may be achieved. Thank you. SPECIFICOtalk02:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to discuss, feel free to revert me, and I will make sure to keep to this WP:BRD business with other people regarding other articles in future. LudicrousTripe (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
History of macroeconomic thought
In your comment re-adding Marglin to History of macroeconomic thought you stated: "As for castigating simply for being WP, all I need is RS." WP:RS is a minimum requirement for including a source, meeting that requirement does not guarantee a source's right to be included. I think the most pertinent policy here is WP:Undue, but the real issue is whether something should go into the article, not whether it satisfies a bunch of policies. HMT covers a broad topic with a large literature. Not every comment on the subject can be included. A comment in a footnote in a 10+ year-old working paper regarding a single component of the history of macroeconomics is not the best candidate for inclusion, especially when it involves a novel idea of how the history of macro should have gone.--Bkwillwm (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Bkwillwm. Thanks for stopping by.
Well, I am not going to re-insert the material, as I said in my edit comment. Thus I settle here for a quibble that, unless there are policies for exclusion/inclusion to determine what should or shouldn't be allowed into an article, and that unless those policies everywhere and always provide the framework for accepting/rejecting material, one will inevitably be left with situations in which the addition and removal of material is performed on an entirely subjective basis. Of course, editors will, and do, exploit the uniform application of policies to sneak things through the gaps, so to speak, but the separation of should from policies that you appear to suggest I must resist.
Certainly, a better source can be found than Marglin's aside in this now infamous footnote...
I left a welcome message on their IP page that links to some of the basic Wikipedia principals, hopefully they will read it and come back with a better understanding of how things work. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom17:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you undo my edit and then reinsert my edit under your own name?
Hey, I just jumped the gun on condemning your edits. Pure silliness on my part. I also added some inflammatory remarks to talk (deleted them straight away), but then noticed that your edits were fine. Overall, just apologies and best wishes from me. LudicrousTripe (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! :) But make sure you won't repeat the mistake again....use e-mail for personal messages... Feel free to contact me for any query.. Cheers, TheStrikeΣagle10:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you the boss! I hear ya! And if your giant country feels like investing in a ramshackle, has-been economy off the north-west coast of Europe, be my guest! Buziaki, as my Polish friends like to say. LudicrousTripe (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Of course men don't have naturally rapey instincts. You know that. I know that. Everyone with two brain cells knows that. But Serena, apparently, does not, which is why she seemed to think, going by her quoted comment, that it's a woman's fault if she gets raped because men just can't help themselves. It's a disgusting attitude, one that is extremely hurtful to both genders. That is the point I am making here and you and I are in agreement on it."
Hey, thanks. Always easy to leap with daggers drawn at a dirty Grauniad hack. Occasionally, very occasionally, it isn't merited. Can't wait till that stinking cesspit of Labour propaganda runs out of cash. A shame no one cares enough to call Bernard Porter on describing the genocide of the Native Americans and Aborigines as a process of "displacing the[] original inhabitants". Yeah, like the Germans "displaced" the Jews of Eastern Europe, eh, Bernard? Chomsky called Mark Mazower for the same reason. Grauniadesque liberals make me sick. Yep, and so nice to see Roger Cohentaking a pasting in the current issue of the NYRB. LudicrousTripe (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have now started three discussion sections, the first one blatantly insulting everyone you're trying to talk to, on controversial topics. You have, so far, refused to respond to any comments on them, instead making new sections just as inflammatory. Please respond to your old posts, otherwise it just seems like you're floating by every couple of days to insult us without actually providing any valuable input. If that's the case, then stop. If it's not, and you're actually on the article to improve it rather than insult the people who work on it, then please stick around and discuss. --Golbez (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great additions to revisionist accounts of the Rwandan Genocide, but I got a bit confused by the raft of edits. I'm easily confused. In future, could you fill out brief edit summaries so it's easy to see what you're adding? thank you PhilMacD (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for your kind words! I'll be sure to use edit summaries, I've already been told about it once! Just lazines on my part. Best wishes! LudicrousTripe (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like this compared to this! (Before compared to after your editing!)
Plus—and this is sheer personal impression, so don't ask me to justify it!—the articles of many Black African figures, even fairly major ones, don't get enough attention. Just nice to see someone who edits them when so many obviously can't be bothered to. LudicrousTripe (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there Ludicrous! Good to know that there are others out there taking an interest in the welfare of the Noam Chomsky page. I've been working over there for a year or so now, mostly adding material from the Barsky biography, but it's only been today that I decided to really take a hacksaw to the article and get rid of stuff. The article was far in excess of Wikipedia's policies on length, and a very significant chunk of it was un-referenced. That which was referenced was often poorly so (many links to first-hand sources, interviews with Chomsky etc rather than reliable second-hand sources), and talked about such things as Chomsky's opinions on Osama bin Laden's death and the influence of his linguistics on psychology which (though IMO interesting), are not important enough to warrant inclusion here. I didn't think that much meaningful improvement could go on at the page without some major clearance first. You can't sow your seeds without first killing off the weeds. My ultimate aim is to get the quality and content of the Chomsky article up to a par with the article for another academic-come-leftist activist that interests me, V. Gordon Childe. Your contribution to that aim would be greatly welcomed, of course. Thanks for contacting me, and all the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, nice to see the work you've done over at Anton Lembede; I was one of those responsible for the recent re-write of Nelson Mandela, and it's great to see some of the lesser-known figures of the struggle getting their Wiki articles improved. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words! You are doing fine things with the Chomsky, and well done on Mandela! As for V. Gordon Childe: well, is it possible for a Wikipedia article to be beautiful? Bravo!LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still, at least Chelsea wasn't man ---> 'neither', like some people I've read about! Whatever does one do then?
You look at the preferences of the person in question, and usually you have to ask. Kate Bornstein currently identifies as neither, but prefers female pronouns (her path was man to woman to neither). Androgynes sometimes prefer "ze" and "hir" as neutral pronouns, or sometimes "sie" and "hir." Gender fluid folk often use he/his some times and she/hers others. I prefer the pronouns I'm presenting with at the moment in person, and ze and hir in writing (or just he/him in writing locations where I don't have much anonymity, since I'm still in the closet) ... But I try to be loosey-goosey about it, because I know its all complicated and hard. People get points just for trying. As another trans-person I knew said, you can always tell who is trying and messed up, and who isn't even trying ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.157.156.137 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see! Thanks for dropping by! Most interesting. I keep meaning to have a read up about sex and gender, because it's obvious even to me that they are rather more complicated than male or female, man or woman. Cheers!LudicrousTripe (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you're frustrated here, but this kind of comment should be avoided in the future. Bugs has been warned on his talk page by an admin, so you should direct further complaints about his behavior to the warning admin. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Dear Mark Arsten, I do not see how I am guilty of harassment, which is a fairly strong word. Admittedly, the ban is light, so you obviously do not regard it as particularly serious, but I do insist that the user concerned never asked me to stop after my first post, and the two posts I made were so light-hearted I do not find them worthy of a block. Sheer hypersensitivity on their part, if you ask me. How the person concerned survives the genuine rough and tumble of real life, let alone in an environment like the armed forces, is unclear to me. Still, I'm pretty much resigned to the 24-hour ban, just thought I'd see if I could escape it... Best wishes!LudicrousTripe (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Referring to someone's last meal is a bit unnerving. But if you meant it in jest, then I'd just ask that you refrain from jokes about physical violence and then we'll get along fine.--v/r - TP19:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your request to leave it here, but I find your use of Sword of Truth funny because I quite enjoy the novels by Terry Goodkind and I assure you that the fictional sword is quite lethal. Especially in light of this recent news story. With that, I'll respect your request and we can part ways.--v/r - TP19:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know what it feels like to be blocked for a dumb reason, so I can empathize with how you must feel. I blocked mainly because of the "Think of this as your last meal, for my wrath descends upon ye" comment than the Sword of Truth thing. Can you see why we found that comment troubling? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my view, the language I was using to challenge my worthy opponent—I wax terrible, smite, descends upon ye, Wikicaffeine—was utterly absurd, which meant it never even crossed my mind that someone could take Wikicaffeine-as-last-meal to be a threat of any kind, let alone physical violence. For your information, I purchased my "simple sword of truth" from one of our ridiculous politicians of yesteryear:
If it falls to me to start a fight to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of [traditional] British fair play, so be it. I am ready for the fight. The fight against falsehood and those who peddle it.
I will definitely also equip myself with the "trusty shield of [traditional] British fair play" the next time I have cause to unsheathe the "simple sword of truth".
Let us all put this unfortunate and silly episode behind us. Let us venture forth and create featured articles out of stubs, make unfailing use of inline citations and RS, and so on. Best wishes!LudicrousTripe (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for my part in not seeing the humor. At the time, I guess I felt that since you didn't see my irony earlier then we were just not able to have a bit of fun at each others expense. So when your messages appeared on my talk page, they appeared more creepy than funny. Seems to me that we're both folks who like to use a bit of humor even when we're arguing with someone and for my part I misunderstood your intentions. So again, I'm sorry.--v/r - TP19:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Chelsea Manning and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary Injunction Enacted
The Arbitration Committee has passed a temporary injunction in the case in which you are a party to. The full text of the injunction follows:
Hello there LT, and thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. If I were in your shoes, I would remove the offending quote from the article, with a brief explanation in the available bar. Then, I would post on the article's talk page, explaining what you have done and why. That should be sufficient; I wouldn't bother trying to track down the offender. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The admin deleted the material because "tabloids aren't allowed", but when I pointed out the Mail is not a tabloid, was so arrogant that he did not deem any further explanation necessary. Just another admin on a power trip. I don't see why I should be banned just because he doesn't know that the Mail isn't a tabloid and wants to have a cry about it. LudicrousTripe (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accept reason:
regardless of whether or not your actions deserved a block (they probably did) it is entirely innaporpriate for an admin to block someone they are engaged in a content dispute with. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, John. I see: behave like a little cry-baby with those admin privileges, huh? Little power trip, eh? The Daily Mail is NOT a tabloid, which was your reason for deleting the material. You then deemed it unnecessary to provide any further explanation for deleting the material. Which part of "The Daily Mail is not a tabloid" are you unable to comprehend? LudicrousTripe (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comical: NOW he starts a talk page discussion. I guess me telling you to get lost from my talk page offended your power-crazed admin mindset, huh? Had to pay me back for that! How dare I dish out the orders to you, an admin! Ah, well. I'm quite proud to have been banned by someone who doesn't know that the Mail isn't a tabloid. LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit-warring to keep trivial BLP information in an article is itself a BLP violation, since your edit summaries clearly indicate that you're inserting that rubbish for the reader to draw inferences from. You were unblocked (you were never "banned") by Beeblebrox; good for you. Carry on--but not with the Blair rubbish please. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:J Mil Hist.png
Thanks for uploading File:J Mil Hist.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BlurredLines20:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:Diplomatic History.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. BlurredLines21:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit uncertain what the issue is with these minatures. My efforts at the NYU Press got me a "thank" from the university itself (lucky me, eh!?!?!?!), and someone from Purdue University Press has edited the article I added the picture to after it was added and did not complain (no "thank" though, which was hurtful). LudicrousTripe (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the work...can see you beavering away, even correcting yourself. I like a flippant attitude. Hope this site does not break your heart and if it does, hope that that does not break your heart.
Thank you for your thank you! You are working just as hard on that article! So "well done" right back at ya! Perhaps one day Wikipedia will break me... but for the moment... there are stubs that need expanding, lots of {{Harv}}ing to be done!! Thanks again! Adieu!LudicrousTripe (talk) 08:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vietnam War
I intend to revert this good faith edit of yours. "Defense Departnment officials believed that these body count figures need to be deflated by 30 percent" is not an unsourced claim. All three of the following sentences were covered in the source: "The official US Department of Defense figure was 950,765 communist forces killed in Vietnam from 1965 to 1974. Defense Departnment officials believed that these body count figures need to be deflated by 30 percent. In addition, Guenter Lewy assumes that one-third of the reported "enemy" killed may have been civilians, concluding that the actual number of deaths of communist military forces was probably closer to 444,000." Omitting that sentence makes Lewy's reasoning impossible to follow.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Estimated completion
Hope this does not take away from the fun (don't want to kill the goose that lays), but when do you think you will be all the way through the article?
Probably need a re-pass through at the end as I've added few bare urls and the like. Since the detail work hurts my eyes just relying on you to clean up my messes. ;-) -TCO
Here is freelink for De re metallica (didn't want to edit it in, since the ECs). You can probably just list Hoover as second author. See some citations doing that. Hoover needs to be listed as his commentaries are about 25% of the content in the book (and he is the relevant author for what I want to cite). (Would set the date at 1912 with the Mining Magazine as publisher as the Dover is a pure reprint). There's also a quite nice site that has the 1912 edition with pictures (Gutenberg doesn't), but it has prominent ads and I don't want to get into people fussing at me for linking to it.
Hellooooo! The Proceedings authors got lost when the cites were turned into {{cite doi}}s, I think. Originally, both the (lead) surnames began with 'B', so that is why they are there. I will sort them out, I promise you so badly. I will also italicise those pesky bacteria! Adieu!LudicrousTripe (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done Italicised as asked. Also the Proceedings {{cite doi}}s are now filled out with Bartlett as per this version, i.e. the one before my first edit on Fluorine. Verily that latter article's cites are now in alphabetical order! Cheers!LudicrousTripe (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
David Gerard (talk·contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using his administrator permissions (i) on pages relating to transgender people or issues and (ii) in situations involving such pages. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter.
The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.
All editors, especially those whose behavior was subject to a finding in this case, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Wikipedia, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not.
Hi Ludicrous Tripe,
Thanks for your recent edits to the Rwandan Genocide article. I lived in Rwanda the last two years and am gradually working on improving coverage of the country on WP. The 20th anniversary of the Genocide will be April 7 2014 and I'd like its article to be on the Main Page on that day. I'd like to give it a thorough copy edit, spruce it up and take it through the review processes. But I haven't been a major contributor so far and you've done so much recent work on it, I wanted to see if you were interested in joining me in any part of the process (or taking it on yourself). Thoughts? - Lemurbaby (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing in History of Poland
Would you please fix the new reference system (I don't know how to do it) in History of Poland. There are two volumes of Davies' God's Playground there, issued the same year but with separate page numbering in each. How do I make a citation refer to a particular volume? The way it is now Volume I always comes up. Orczar (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cześć! Stick an a and b on to 2005. Actually, I'll do this for you, so you then just have to make the corresponding adjustments to the years in the {{Harvnb}}s. If it's not clear what I mean, let me know and I'll explain in more detail. LudicrousTripe (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the hard work
I know it's not done yet, but you have done so much sheer work, that I want to make sure you get an attaboy now. Appreciate the detail work and I hope it is somehow interesting or at least you enjoy seeing how pretty the result looks (the long ref list and all). Anyhoo...good work.69.255.27.249 (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha ha! Can't have been as much work as putting the article together in the first instance! You yourself have done much powerful work. That is to your credit. I live for boring, repetitive Wikipedia jobs. ;D Waaaaaaa! :-( I'll finish off the little wretches. I have just been so busy the last week IRL, and I wanted to do some slave labour on History of Poland, so the old F has suffered. LudicrousTripe (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My dearest Orczar! To receive a word of thanks from someone to whom I blessed with the Order of National Merit (Poland) means the world to me. Permit me to insist, however, that your emptying your knowledge into History of Poland and other Poland-related articles puts my meagre efforts to shame! Cheers!LudicrousTripe (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are so many kinds of awesome I feel like screaming!! I will add the results of your detective work to the article forthwith! Well done and thank you!LudicrousTripe (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
<< Fluorine Barnstar from TCO; moved to user page >>
Thank you so much! You are too kind! The magnificent Fluorine article itself is so awesome because of your knowledge and hard work. My humble prettifying of the ref layout is the lowliest contribution to its gloss. Cheers!LudicrousTripe (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Gove
(1) The names of news sources *should* be italicised. That is one reason why it should be "cite news" and not "cite web", and the news source is "work" or "newspaper", not "publisher". "Publisher" in cite news doesn't mean the name of the source, and is for use only in the rare case of a small, obscure organ in addition to the name; we don't use it for mainstream news sources. The publisher of The Guardian is Guardian News and Media, but we don't need to say so.
Just to be clear, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Names_and_titles says "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized."
(2) WP editors have not so far generally sought to distinguish between the print and online versions of newspapers where both exist. I can see a theoretical case for doing so, especially in cases like the Daily Mail/Mail Online where the two are often quite different, but it introduces all sorts of complications. But if we are going to do so, the internet domain name won't suffice unless the website calls itself that. Theguardian.com does call itself that, but Mail Online calls itself Mail Online, not dailymail.co.uk. And of course if we are going to start doing this, it needs to be consistent throughout any one article. I am disinclined to do any of this in the absence of a general WP policy on the matter, and would prefer to stick to calling both versions The Guardian (London) or Daily Mail (London), etc.
(3) Author names in references can be either lastname, firstname or firstname lastname, but not a mixture of both. In this article the established practice is clearly lastname, firstname. This can be achieved either with the parameters |first= and |last= or with the parameter |author=. It doesn't matter which. -- Alarics (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(1) In my cites that are referring to websites, there is no |work=, so |publisher= cannot be referring to the publisher of the work; and ought to be clear as referring to the publisher of the article with name |title=, putting pedantry to one side.
(2) "WP editors have not so far generally sought to distinguish..." Do you have a source for this? Anyway, I don't much care, because they certainly ought to. The Guardian, for example, usually has different publication dates for articles that appear on its website and when they appear in the newspaper the following day. Their online articles are even listed as published by theguardian.com, not The Guardian.
(3) I already accepted your pedantry regarding {{Cite news}} and {{Cite web}}, and I also so changed my |author= to |last= |first=.
Dealing with your arrogant pedantry really is not much fun. If you care that much about template use, go through and change |publisher= to |work= yourself. I'm not going to have you revert my work back to a messier version of the article just because you have nothing better to worry about in life than template use on Wikipedia. LudicrousTripe (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(1) "There is no |work=" -- You are mistaken. Cite news has a parameter "work" (or "newspaper" which does the same) and cite news (not cite web) is the template to use for an item in a news source, whether it is online or only in print. Either "work" or "newspaper" will put the name of the news source in italics, which is what is required.
(2) I already said that I can see the case for distinguishing between the online and print versions, but if you look at a few articles you will see that it generally hasn't been done in the past. It raises a lot of issues. But if we are going to do that we have to be consistent about it.
(3) It is not pedantry to distinguish between cite news and cite web. They produce different results. At the least, these things need to be consistent within any one article or the whole thing just looks sloppy. The article, before you came to it, had a clearly established format for references, which was to use "cite news" for news sources, so that the name of the news source is italicised in each case, which is what we are supposed to do according to the Manual of Style section which you yourself quoted at me. "I'm not going to have you revert my work back to a messier version of the article" -- who is being arrogant now? It is you who left the article in an inconsistent and messy state and that is why I corrected some of your mistakes. I shall continue to do so. -- Alarics (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(1) No, as in I didn't use |work= in the {{Cite web}}s (which are now {{Cite news}} after your pedantic insistence.
(2) "... if we are going to do that we have to be consistent about it." I am being consistent about it. If it's clear an article was actually printed identically in the newspaper, I use |newspaper= ; otherwise, I use |publisher= and slap in the name of the website. See the New York Times website, which often says: "A version of this article was printed in the print edition of DDMMYYYY". Hence I always cite as nytimes.
(3)It wasn't consistent before I started, and it there will be a transition period of "messiness" while I make it consistent!
I've wasted enough time discussing this tedious issue. Please don't post again on my talk page if it's to do with Wikipedia templates; discussion of such unimportant topics is of no interest to me. LudicrousTripe (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for telling Pluto2012: "It works both ways, buddy! You just blatantly stalked Ykantor's edit on the Holocaust article
I will appreciate it if you can elaborate about: "it's always hard dealing with nationalists (in this case an Israeli one, dearest Ykantor), since they invariably try to minimise or whitewash their country's crimes here on Wikipedia—but that's still no excuse! Two wrongs don't make a right ".?
I am Israeli, but I try to be objective. In my opinion, it is beneficial for Israel NOT TO HIDE the wrong doings, so people may know that we have to improve ourselves. However, here in the Wikipedia, there is a lot of POV against Israel. I have tried to balance it a little bit, with little success. You can read here what tactics are applied against me.
Concerning Israeli crimes, will it be possible for you to list the10 worst or important crimes? I am curious to know more about those crimes. If you are interested, I will reply with my opinion. thanks Ykantor (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, my Israeli friend! You're quite welcome. Sorry for the delay. I visited Israel some years ago now and enjoyed it a great deal. I also went to the West Bank.
Well, let me settle for a bland statement that, both sides have committed crimes; Israel has committed far more, because it has a lot more power and the Americans let your government get away with it; but I am much more interested in the terrible things my country gets up to. I mean, whatever you can say about what your government does to the Palestinians, take a look at what us and the Americans have made of Iraq and a long list of other countries. You Israelis can't compete with us.
I agree with you concerning "love my country" and Einstein quotes. The difference between the U.S and Israel is not the size only. The existence of Israel is not granted, unlike the U.S. . Western people can not grasp such a situation, since Israel is supposedly a strong state. But we have already been on the verge of collapse on 1973 war (we have plenty of idiot generals). Prior to this war we were considered as a sort of local superpower too. We live in the middle east where nothing is stable, except the hatred of Israel.
The occupation of the Palestinians is bad for Israel, for both moral and practical reasons. In order to survive , we have to be strong i.e. need good army, prosperous economy in order to finance the army , to create jobs, and to attract Jews from overseas. Holding the West Bank is distracting our resources from advancing to the right direction.
In order to make peace with the Palestinians both sides have to compromise. However, even the liberal Israelis do not accept their terms. The so called "Right of return" is equivalent to the end of Israel as a Jewish state.
So, what next? I do not know. Maybe a unilateral withdrawal. But the past unilateral withdrawal results (from Gaza strip) are shooting us with rockets.
Hello, Ykantor! You seem like such a nice chap, and it appears I misjudged you. I apologise. I will make the time to reply to you by the end of this week, I promise!
Why cannot I, correctly, state Mehdi is a fundamentalist Shia Muslim. Not only is he proud of that fact, it is accurate and verified with a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crieff405 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Crieff405. The word fundamentalist has pejorative connotations. Even if it didn't, the term is, in my opinion, completely vacuous. And try getting that George W. Bush is a "fundy" Christian into his article. So: firstly, Wikipedia is not about trying slip in pejorative terminology into BLP (neutral terminology); secondly, the term fundamentalist is anyway totally vacuous; thirdly, for consistency. These are my views and are the reason I reverted your addition. LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iloveandrea. In regards to the sockpuppet investigation. If you would like to attempt a return to normal editing, your best course of action is to undertake the steps at WP:Standard offer. Your new account LudicrousTripe started editing only four months rather than the prescribed six, but the lack of problematic behaviour in the meantime leads me to believe that community support would be in favour of a return to normal editing, possibly with a topic ban still in place on Israeli-Palestine topics. If you are interested in pursuing this option, please post here or send me an email and I will open a thread at WP:AN and get the discussion started. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Diannaa. Thank you for stopping by. I guess I should take you up on this offer, else I'm just kicking the can down the road. Go ahead and start the thread you so kindly mentioned, and let's see what comes of it. I'm happy to forgo editing on Israel–Palestine and any other topics people deem necessary. I just do so enjoy my Wikipedia editing, I just can't stay away. Best etc. LudicrousTripe (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, great. I have started a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Iloveandrea. Since your acct and IP are not at present blocked, you could post a statement there if you like, or if you feel more comfortable posting here that's okay too. I will copy it over for you. It's not essential that you make a statement, but it's probably a good idea, just to outline that you understand what you did wrong and what changes you have made or plan to continue to work on in your return to normal editing. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chomsky and Psychology
In August last year you removed the whole section "Psychology" from the article Noam Chomsky while announcing that you would "slap it back when it's done". I don't really see when or how you did that. The present treatment of Chomsky's impact on psychology is both shallow and quite thin. --Lambiam00:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Somers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gbawden (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
