This is an archive of past discussions with User:RockMagnetist. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I am grateful to you for your willingness to tackle difficult topics. I encourage you to continue creating articles on difficult to research topics such as Pierre Perrault (1608–1680). Wikipedia needs more editors like you, and I hope you are not chased away by those who attempt to foist their preferences on you. Best, Cunard (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
As it looks like we may be going towards a more general academic bibliography scope (or at least thinking about it), I've just asked Drmies if he would have any interest in joining us. Maybe you know of other individuals that might join in if issued a friendly invitation? LadyofShalott02:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Funny how this happened. I never contributed much to the bibliographies, but I didn't like the way this was being handled, and next thing I know I'm helping to form a WikiProject! RockMagnetist (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I support making it clear that the scope is as wide as it was when APH started this project. It was always wider than Science, so Science Pearls is a bad name in two respects. It should be more than science and "Pearls" is unclear. However, I would like to see these AfD out of the way before we finally decide. General academic bibliography scope will be fine by me then. --Bduke(Discussion)11:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I am definitely on board with this, but do agree with Bduke that we need to be clear on the scope. For example, is anything taught at the undergraduate or graduate level of higher education considered Academic? For now that's just a general question but eventually, we'll need to have some more specificity. My personal inclination is the broader the scope in the context of academia, the better. Another thought we might want to ponder is to ally the project to some extent with Wikimedia Global Education Program. Bibliographies by their very nature are tools of academia and the Wikimedia Foundations goal for participation by higher education in WP are bold--10,000 students participating by 2015. As a Campus Ambassador at Montana State University, I spend a fair amount of time preaching the benefits of Outlines and Bibliographies in WP. A third and final thought is that we ought to be able to create a project level structure guide for bibliographies similar to that used for Books and Biographies. Having a consensus based standard for bibliographies would go along way toward ensuring their success in WP. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Please never do something like this again. All AfD discussions are transcluded on the daily log; by adding those tags you broke transclusion of the remainder of the discussion, including the header. If you want to refer to a part of a discussion, just copy it over. T. Canens (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Preston Cloud (1970). Adventures in Earth History.
What exactly is this book? Is it a listing of important works similar to the Source Books, a general geology textbook, or something else. If it is the former, it may be useful to specify that in the AfD. The original closing had (before the relisting) already been questioned by Curb Chain with a comparison to the math one. LadyofShalott16:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I found in GBooks a description of it that sounds like it is the former. I haven't been able to see the book itself though - please do say exactly what it is in the AfD. We need to be as specific as possible to make the case for keeping airtight. LadyofShalott17:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, we don't need to add to the AfD because it is closed, and the decision was to keep the list. This book is a compilation of significant geology papers. I'll add some documentation in the list when I get a chance. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
RM go to my user page and there should be a link entitled E-mail this user. I'll get your email and be able to respond to you. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
If there is such a link, it must be well hidden. The first thing I tried after your earlier message was exactly that. I tried searching your user and talk pages for email and e-mail, and found nothing. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a good start! I have bad news about the DYK nomination, though. Strictly speaking, for an article to be nominated, it has to have been created or expanded (by a factor of 5) within the last 5 days. So the nomination for T Peter Brody has to go in the list for October 6; I have already moved it. It probably won't do any good, though, because one of the items on the checklist for reviewers is the creation date. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I have started reviewing it. /* Early life and career */ needs some citations. Also, the hook needs a bit of work, because most people probably don't know what an active matrix display is. I considered suggesting something like
Thanks for your input but I don't think the suggested change to the hook is an adequate representation. Active matrix display technology is used nowadays in everything from watches, mobile phones, tablet computers, TVs, home appliances, aircraft displays -- it's the predominant technology behind the vast majority of displays on the market and is not specific to liquid crystal displays (AM-LCD, AM-EL, AM-OLED are all based on the same principles) nor to notebook computers. How about something like the following:
That sounds reasonable. You could add it as another alternate. My only concern is that your citations only prove that he was one of the inventors. If you can prove he was the driving force behind the invention, great; otherwise some other wording is needed in place of "invented". RockMagnetist (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I've added it as an alternate. I think the literature on the whole supports the sole-inventor claim but it's hard to find a simple statement of that. My father always wanted to share credit with his co-workers, but they would certainly have agreed that he was the driving force. I'll keep digging to see what I can find online. Re his /* Early life and career */, it's not possible to find online citations but there are documents which prove most of the claims. Unfortunately they are not currently accessible. Does this mean the section needs to go? --Cbrody (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if he was your father! What do you mean by accessible? The documents don't have to be available online, but it should be possible for other people to go to a library or the equivalent and access them. If they don't satisfy that criterion, you might consider removing the section until the DYK nomination is over. After that - well, articles can sit for years with an "Unreferenced" tag at the top of a section. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Ironically, just today I wanted to substantiate a comment and couldn't use "Authority X, personal communication", although that is allowed in refereed journals. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I found a citation which clearly states that he led the research group. I've inserted it at ref number 5 on the page, despite the news release containing multiple inaccuracies (for example, Fang-Chen Luo only joined the team some years AFTER the first active matrix screen was fabricated.) Re the early life citations, these consist of paper documents (e.g. his PhD thesis, concert programmes etc.), swimming trophies, medals, etc. -- all of which are over 3000 miles away from where I'm writing this -- plus of course personal communications. But surely any biographical article will contain such unsubstantiatable claims? Cbrody (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The hook - Cbrody (talk·contribs) and I have discussed this very point. I am not a physicist, which is why I have asked for your help. From a citation point of view, the OED entry on active matrix credits T P Brody et al (thus not T P Brody alone) and it seems to me that it is clear Brody created the first LCD panel as reported in IEEE Transactions, Electron Devices (20): 995. Cbrody (talk·contribs)'s external links give a very good history though I feel many are not WP:RS. I am continuing to encourage Cbrody; he has also been given a link to this post- in the meantime, I am sure Cbrody would not mind you changing the hook and or article as necessary. Thank you for your support --Senra (Talk) 15:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it looks great now, and I have confirmed the nomination. I added a citation for the last two paragraphs because they still closely follow the wording of the obituary. Nice work. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I think you did a more significant job in finding sources. I have really been flat out over the time those AfDs were running. It looks like the Biology one will come back with a little effort.
Did you see the template deletion discussion for the inclusion criteria template? --Bduke(Discussion)20:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Never mind - I found it. What a comedy this is. The biology list has been restored by non other than Curb Chain, and now someone wants to delete the template! RockMagnetist (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
"list of important" deletion debates
Please understand that past articles had been deleted for reasons the same reasons that I nominated the articles I for deletion, such as having no references, and no lede as according to one of the admins who closed a previous similar deletion discussion.
I seemed stubborn at the debates because the side had to be argued. I rather see a standard across all articles, although personally I stand by my deletion stance. But I'd rather see a harmonization across articles. This is unfortunate but this is the best solution.Curb Chain (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the welcome, The Transhumanist. My main goal on Wikipedia is to improve the content in geophysics and magnetism. I had my own list of links for geophysics, so it didn't take long to turn it into Outline of geophysics. It looks like Earth sciences has plenty of gaps in outlines. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I like it! Your love of the subject definitely shows through.
The lists section is a temporary holding bin, a place to put list links until you find a better location for them in the outline. (A link dump for related lists). It should be removed once the lists have been moved to more appropriate locations in the outline.
I've made a few edits here and there. And the outline reminded me of some updates needed to the template (thank you).
Keep in mind that paragraph formatting does not belong in outlines. Outline of canoeing and kayaking, though excellently written has paragraph problems, which are in the process of being converted to hierarchical list formatting.
Dear Transhumanist, your love of outlines shows through! Thank you for the encouragement. I have a couple of questions: Is the "Nature of" section intended for links to outlines only? And is my tree structure too deep? (I notice that your standards for excellence only go two deep). RockMagnetist (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Some of the outlines go many levels deep - they should go as deep as the subject goes - use as many levels as you need to.
The TOC is usually truncated because while a short TOC is useful for navigating long outlines, a long TOC tends to distract or add an extra navigation step because it is essentially an outline of the outline and therefore redundant and superfluous, so we disintermediate it to some extent.
On outlines, we favor links to other outlines. If a subject you are including in an outline has an outline, link to that. Otherwise, link to the regular article. Innovation is also good, for example, the Outline of geography in its regions section provides links to both country outlines and country articles.
The Nature of section is not intended for outlines only, though favor outline links as mentioned above.
Outline of physics is a mess. Some editors have been addding navigation footers into the body of outlines, and tables. Even if tables retain hierarchical structure and include annotations, their formatting is harder to work with than simple outline formatting. It's best to keep it simple. Navigation footers especially do not support annotations, and they usually abbreviate the links in some way. They also render the edit history useless by nesting outline content - changes to nested content do not show up in a page's edit history. To minimize confusion, we usually provide the whole name of each subject, which is usually the whole article name. Though outline links we generally hide the "Outline of" part.
When I come across inserted templates like navigation footers or tables, I generally pull them into the outline using {{subst:template name}}, and then remove the formatting, convert them to outline formatting, place the links where appropriate, remove duplicate links, and then add annotations.
An attrocious outline that I have not gotten around to cleaning up yet and which is choked with nav footers, infoboxes, etc. is Outline of christianity. It is an example of how not to build an outline. Leaving examples like this laying around is not good, because the formatting errors propogate as editors copy the design of the faulty outlines. It's kind of like fighting cancer or forest fires - if not dealt with quickly, they spread out of control.
I am in the process of going though all the outlines and cleaning them up, converting nav footers to outline content, reformatting or removing expository paragraphs, placing links from "Lists of" section, etc. But with 535 outlines, it's going to take awhile. Wish me luck, The Transhumanist19:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
RockMagnetist, if you know of other corrections and additions to Marcia McNutt I hope you'll make them. Especially because I know nothing about geophysics, it's very helpful that you made some edits. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Glad to help. I have been expanding List of geophysicists and trying to make a summary statement of the importance of each person to geophysics. It's surprising how many articles did not contain that information, even when the subject was primarily notable for geophysics. Marcia McNutt, of course, is notable for more than one reason, and you have done a fine job on her page. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
RM - Here's how I might proceed with this. Per my ideas in the WikiProject Bibliographies, I would first drop the Important word from the article title and rename (move) this list to Bibliography of Biology. A quick search of the Internet Archive provides several sources that can be used to support listing publications about biology as group to meet the WP:NOTESAL requirement. Once moved, I would tag with Under Construction and I would then begin to transform the list into a summary style article WP:SS with major sections for each of the sub-topics in biology. In Summary Style, each sub-section would have a short paragraph explaining whats included. IE. what is Zoology in relationship to Biology. I would list a few titles underneath and if there are sufficient titles, create the sub-topic as a new list article. For entries in this list, I would shorten the annotations to a couple of prose sentences and ensure that sources were cited to verify the annotation. The WP community as a whole does not understand lists and the complex relationship between--notability, inclusion criteria, and verifiability of entries. This is evident in many of the AfD arguments related to lists. The only way we can work to change that is too improve existing lists so they are in compliance with those complex relationships. If you have an questions, don't hesitate to ask, but I am traveling so it may take a while to respond. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Here's a very explicit source to meet WP:NOTESAL requirements:
Excellent! Thank you. I'd be interested in knowing your search terms - you seem to be better at finding these references than I am. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Here's another: Bibliography of the History of Biology/Bibliographie Zur Geschichte De Biologie: Bibliographie Zur Geschichte Der Biologie (ISBN: 0820435139 / 0-8204-3513-9), Anne Baumer-Schleinkofer (1997)
Neither of us are Astrophysicists. I am an Electrical Enginering professor at Syracuse University. I direct our Spcialty Optical Fiber Laboratory. Most of the fibers we make and test are my inventions. Throughout my career I always worked on projects no one else is workoing on.
Lately I got interested in Astrophysics. I wrote two papaers; REACTION MECHANICS and THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE DELAYED GRAVITATIONAL INTERACTIO ON THE MOTION OF OBJECT PAIRS. REACTION MECHANICS is a general theory similar to Classical Mechanics and the General Theory of Relativity but for systems with delayed interactions. In the limit of no delay REACTION MECHANICS reverts to Classical Mechanics and in the limit of infinitesimal dely REACTION MECHANICS reverts to the General Theory of Relativity. In the second paper I analyze the contribution of the delayed gravitational interaction too the Lunar orbit an the orbit of the 596B binary stas. My results are in excellent agreement with observations, especially with the 38 mm expansion of the major axis of the lunar orbit per year observed by NASA.
I have more interesting results some even suggest that one does not need Black energy to explain the expansion of the Univrse and similar effects.
You keep posting this statement on various talk pages, which is a sign that you don't understand the issues at stake. Maybe your Reaction mechanics is an exciting new discovery that will be widely used in a few years. If so, I congratulate you. But this is an encyclopedia, not an academic journal; and your article is a research paper, not an encyclopedia entry. Maybe in a few years Reaction mechanics will be discussed in review articles and books, and it will be ready for inclusion in Wikipedia. But right now you haven't provided a single citation for it. Sorry, but an acceptance letter from a journal doesn't count.
I encourage you to keep contributing to WIkipedia, but please make an effort to learn some of the policies and guidelines. You have been reminded more than once to sign your contributions to talk pages, but you still don't - and you posted the above message on my user page, not my talk page. At the top of your talk page there is a welcome statement with links to articles that you should read if you want to make good contributions to Wikipedia. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
This is not how you should move an article, because the whole history gets lost this way (which is against the CC license). Before editing this, you should contact and admin (because this would involve some deleting/recreating) to correct this. --Crusio (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. There was a pp-move added by an administrator who is now retired, so I worked around it. I wasn't aware of the implications for the history. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Years ago I did such a copy-paste move, too and got a slap on the hand for that :-) It's against the CC and the fact that the history is still in the redirect is apparently not enough. An admin can do the move correctly (even now after the fact). --Crusio (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
